Subject: Re: Reminder that we are supporting two parallel IPsec implementations
To: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 09/12/2003 14:25:02
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 01:28 PM, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> Ok, maybe I'm on the wrong page. I assumed that Itojun _added_ kernfs
> supoprt, and that if kernfs wasn't there, we'd use PF_KEY instead. Is
> assumption correct or incorrect?
That is correct. However, the PF_KEY interface was a second-class
citizen to the kernfs interface, since the PF_KEY interface has a
restriction that the kernfs interface does not have.
That means that kernfs WOULD BE REQUIRED to support large numbers of
-- Jason R. Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>