On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:30:23PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> 
> We made an explicit decision not to do things this way.

Thanks for pointing this out.

> Non-blocking has a meaning dependant upon the xfrm_larval_drop sysctl
> setting, and this is across the board.  If xfrm_larval_drop is zero,
> non-blocking semantics do not extend to IPSEC route resolution,
> otherwise it does.
> 
> If he sets this sysctl to "1" as I detailed in my reply, he'll
> get the behavior he wants.

Does anybody actually need the 0 setting? What would we break if
the default became 1?

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt