Subject: Re: take 2-2 WAS(Re: PATCH: IPSEC xfrm events

From: Masahide NAKAMURA <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:35:47 +0900

Hello Jamal,

jamal wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 18:25, David S. Miller wrote:
> 
> 
>>If you only take write_lock() from process context, only the write_lock()'s
>>need BH disabling.  read_lock() takers can then nest arbitrarily, BH or not.
> 
> 
> Ok, never mind - Ive made the change. 
> As soon as Masahide tests i will post the final patch.

I've tested normal cases below with the latest patch and it works fine.
I think you can go ahead.

tested cases:
  o netlink (using iproute2 "ip xfrm monitor" to confirm it)
    - add/del/flush/expire for SA/SP
    - acquire,allocspi,update for SA
    - update for SP
  o pfkey
    - running racoon
  o both sockets
    - running racoon with using "ip xfrm monitor".

Regards,

-- 
Masahide NAKAMURA