On Mon, 2005-19-12 at 13:57 -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > From: jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:17:19 -0500 > > > Just an addendum: If this works it should be sysctl controlled i hope. > > There is absolutely no reason for that, so no :) >
Well, we went from "use old SA" to "use new SA" policy;-> Dont we need to be able to select one over the other? > > A second approach inspired from your current patch: > > Just delete the route cache entry for the one specific SA on update. I > > could attempt such a patch when i get back from work tonight. > > Jamal, you seem to be asleep at the wheel. This is the whole > difficult problem to solve, finding cache entries from a > specific SA, it's hard stuff :-) > ;-> Of course - and i had my coffee too when i posted that, so no good explanation ;-> > I have a design by which to do this, which I'll code up this > afternoon, so don't waste any cycles on it :) > Thanks for catching me on time - i was thinking about how to do it and for some _odd reason_ (if you know what i mean ;->) i couldnt connect the route cache to the SA clearly. > Meanwhile I also coded up an alternative way to do the flush, > by entry matching in the bundle purger, it looks something like > the patch below. It's not as fast as the "SA --> dst" mapping > thing will be, but it's better than the full flush we'll need to > eat for the more straightforward 2.6.15 fix. > I need to stare at it to understand what you are doing. BTW, what kernels are these patches against? cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
