On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:30:23PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>
> We made an explicit decision not to do things this way.
Thanks for pointing this out.
> Non-blocking has a meaning dependant upon the xfrm_larval_drop sysctl
> setting, and this is across the board. If xfrm_larval_drop is zero,
> non-blocking semantics do not extend to IPSEC route resolution,
> otherwise it does.
>
> If he sets this sysctl to "1" as I detailed in my reply, he'll
> get the behavior he wants.
Does anybody actually need the 0 setting? What would we break if
the default became 1?
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
