Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:19:55 -0700
From:      John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com>
To:        Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>
Cc:        svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r263091 - in head/sys: netinet netinet6
Message-ID:  <20140312221955.GC32089@funkthat.com>
In-Reply-To: <201403121429.s2CET8Hh038762@svn.freebsd.org>
References:  <201403121429.s2CET8Hh038762@svn.freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gleb Smirnoff wrote this message on Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 14:29 +0000:
> Author: glebius
> Date: Wed Mar 12 14:29:08 2014
> New Revision: 263091
> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/263091
> 
> Log:
>   Since both netinet/ and netinet6/ call into netipsec/ and netpfil/,
>   the protocol specific mbuf flags are shared between them.
>   
>   - Move all M_FOO definitions into a single place: netinet/in6.h, to
>     avoid future  clashes.
>   - Resolve clash between M_DECRYPTED and M_SKIP_FIREWALL which resulted
>     in a failure of operation of IPSEC and packet filters.
>   
>   Thanks to Nicolas and Georgios for all the hard work on bisecting,
>   testing and finally finding the root of the problem.
>   
>   PR:			kern/186755
>   PR:			kern/185876
>   In collaboration with:	Georgios Amanakis <gamanakis gmail.com>
>   In collaboration with:	Nicolas DEFFAYET <nicolas-ml deffayet.com>
>   Sponsored by:		Nginx, Inc.

Was the version bumped so that old kernel modules won't cause issues w/
the new numbering?

-- 
  John-Mark Gurney				Voice: +1 415 225 5579

     "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140312221955.GC32089>