[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100331131131.GA13793@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:11:31 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
Cc: Timo Teras <timo.teras@....fi>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfrm: remove policy lock when accessing
policy->walk.dead
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 09:06:13AM -0400, jamal wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:03 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > This seems to be bogus to me. Just because the DB was empty
> > before the flush doesn't mean that the flush didn't happen.
>
> Herbert, If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
> does it make a sound? ;->
> A flush event is meant to be a signal to user space that what
> was once a non-empty table is now empty.
I disagree. A flush event is a signal that someone has sent a
flush command. In any case we've had this semantics for years
and I haven't heard a good reason why this should be changed.
> This is a consistent definition of the semantics everywhere tables
> are flushed (not just in Linux)..
Please give specific examples in the kernel.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
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 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