On Mon, 2006-04-12 at 09:05 -0500, jamal wrote: > Patrick, > > Your approach is much cleaner. Let me give these a few tests then > I will repost later today; forget about the callback approach for now. >
I have just applied the policy patch; havent compiled or tested (the setup takes me a while to put together). But by staring, I am seeing that you will end up with the same thing of sending a NULL or the same entry twice. Consider a simple hypothetical test. You have one one entry in the xfrm_policy_inexact table that matches. It happens to be the fifth out of 10 elements. You find it at the 5th iteration. At the sixth iteration you send it and last becomes null. All the way down, you call func with a NULL entry. You could add a check to make sure it only gets invoked when last is not null, but the result is in such a case, you will never send a 0 count element. I am sure there could be other tricky scenarios like this that could be constructed. Thoughts. 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
