[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1181661564.4067.40.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:19:23 -0400
From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pktgen IPSEC 3/4: Introduce xfrm SAD only lookup
On Tue, 2007-12-06 at 15:45 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Looks good too me, just a few minor nitpicks as usual :)
I like the nitpicks - they make the code better (as long as we put
a time limit on them ;->)
>
> ^^ please delete empty line
will do.
> > + if (x->km.state != XFRM_STATE_VALID)
> > + continue;
>
> ^ one indentation level too much
will fix.
> The whole thing could be compacted by moving the XFRM_STATE_VALID
> check to the first condition:
>
> if (x->props.family == family &&
> x->props.reqid == reqid &&
> !(x->props.flags & XFRM_STATE_WILDRECV) &&
> xfrm_state_addr_check(x, daddr, saddr, family) &&
> mode == x->props.mode &&
> proto == x->id.proto &&
> x->km.state == XFRM_STATE_VALID) {
> rx = x;
> break;
> }
>
> or alternatively turn the != XFRM_STATE_VALID into == if you
> want to keep the first condition similar to xfrm_state_find
> (but the mode and proto conditions are reversed anyways).
>
Will do.
> BTW, wouldn't it make sense to allow use of the SPI as well?
SPI is the least user friendly parameter - but i could add it later.
I want to add tunnel mode next then i can revisit SPI.
Thanks for taking the time to review this Patrick.
cheers,
jamal
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists