On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 12:48:55PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Fri, 3 May 2019, Antony Antony wrote: > > > thanks for digging out more cruft. I tested with pfkey disabled. Now seems > > basic things work. > > > > > > I am confused about your patch. It seems to mix up renaming and removal > > pfkey together. > > I sugest we split these. So far I have 4 patches for functionality. > > Sure, it can be split. > > Note that 0001-pfkey.patch and 0002-pfkey.patch are wrong. If you looked > at my patch you could see that I replaced the checks for /proc/net/pfkey > with a check for /proc/net/xfrm_stat. That way we can still report an > error if the XFRM code is not loaded and could not be modprobed. Similar > to the original code.
I did. that is what I meant 5th patch in e-mail. > Note that now I am looking at 0004-pfkey.patch, we surely got into more > complicated changes, and I no longer think this should go into 3.28. sure! It can wait. 0004-pfkey.patch to me looks like a contained to patch, change one function. So it is easy to test. My prefrence is small patches, contain to minimal relevent chagnes. I am happy re-work 0001-pfkey.patch and 0002-pfkey.patch incorprate relevent chagnes from your big patch. If we agree to split up as I proposed. -antony _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
