On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 17:34 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 16:58 -0600, Joy Latten wrote:
>
> > @@ -710,11 +713,20 @@ static struct xfrm_state *__find_acq_cor
> >
> > switch (family) {
> > case AF_INET:
> > + if (x->id.daddr.a4 == saddr->a4 &&
> > + x->props.saddr.a4 == daddr->a4)
> > + track_opposite = 1;
> > if (x->id.daddr.a4 != daddr->a4 ||
> > x->props.saddr.a4 != saddr->a4)
> > continue;
> > break;
> > case AF_INET6:
> > + if (ipv6_addr_equal((struct in6_addr *)x->id.daddr.a6,
> > + (struct in6_addr *)saddr) ||
> > + ipv6_addr_equal((struct in6_addr *)
> > + x->props.saddr.a6,
> > + (struct in6_addr *)daddr))
> > + track_opposite = 1;
> > if (!ipv6_addr_equal((struct in6_addr *)x->id.daddr.a6,
> > (struct in6_addr *)daddr) ||
> > !ipv6_addr_equal((struct in6_addr *)
>
> I'm not at all able to speak on the correctness or validity of the
> solution, but shouldn't the ipv6 case be a && not an || like the ipv4
> case? Isn't this going to match all sorts of things? Did you test this
> patch on ipv6 and see it to solve your problem?
>
Will fix this and resend. Sorry, forgot about ipv6. My mistake! :-(
> I'm also not enjoying the formatting in the ipv6 part where the first
> time you have the cast on the same time as the object but not the second
> part where x->props.saddr.a6 is on its own little line.
>
ok.
Joy
-
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
