On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:30:23PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > > We made an explicit decision not to do things this way.
Thanks for pointing this out. > Non-blocking has a meaning dependant upon the xfrm_larval_drop sysctl > setting, and this is across the board. If xfrm_larval_drop is zero, > non-blocking semantics do not extend to IPSEC route resolution, > otherwise it does. > > If he sets this sysctl to "1" as I detailed in my reply, he'll > get the behavior he wants. Does anybody actually need the 0 setting? What would we break if the default became 1? Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
