hi, > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:18 AM, YAMAMOTO Takashi <y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp> > wrote: >> hi, >> >> have you checked callers and ensure that the change from EACCES to EPERM >> won't be a problem? > > Only ipsec_set_policy() returns EPERM instead of EACCES now, and I > don't think it should be a problem.
"don't think"? why not? i asked if you checked what the callers of ipsec_set_policy do with the error number. do you mean "yes, of course"? > As for calling context -- I did look at the callers and mostly I just > moved the call inside instead of at the top. That's also why I didn't > remove the last one in in6.c, where is obvious that it's done before > splnet(), and still need to take care of it. :) i'm not sure what you mean. my question was about the ipsec.c change. sorry if it was not clear. > It's possible though that I've missed something. Do you see any problems? i don't know if there are problems or not. i'm not familiar with the code in question. i was just wondering about the implications of the error number change. YAMAMOTO Takashi > > Thanks, > > -e.