Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:53:36 GMT From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: PERFORCE change 159455 for review Message-ID: <200903191653.n2JGraxZ093488@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=159455 Change 159455 by jhb@jhb_jhbbsd on 2009/03/19 16:53:25 IFC @159453 Affected files ... .. //depot/projects/smpng/sys/netipsec/key.c#31 integrate Differences ... ==== //depot/projects/smpng/sys/netipsec/key.c#31 (text+ko) ==== @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -/* $FreeBSD: src/sys/netipsec/key.c,v 1.44 2009/03/19 15:44:13 vanhu Exp $ */ +/* $FreeBSD: src/sys/netipsec/key.c,v 1.45 2009/03/19 15:50:45 vanhu Exp $ */ /* $KAME: key.c,v 1.191 2001/06/27 10:46:49 sakane Exp $ */ /*- @@ -4161,7 +4161,8 @@ if (sav->lft_s->addtime != 0 && now - sav->created > sav->lft_s->addtime) { key_sa_chgstate(sav, SADB_SASTATE_DYING); - /* Actually, only send expire message if SA has been used, as it + /* + * Actually, only send expire message if SA has been used, as it * was done before, but should we always send such message, and let IKE * daemon decide if it should be renegociated or not ? * XXX expire message will actually NOT be sent if SA is only used
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200903191653.n2JGraxZ093488>