On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:53:11AM -0500, James Morris wrote:

The only thing I'd suggest is to consider renaming the new route element
of xfrm_dst to xfrm_dst_route (or xd_route), to make it easier to navigate
the code.  (But the other elements are not distinctive either so perhaps 
some future cleanup could do it).

Thanks for your comment.

I would say that not only are the other elements of xfrm_dst missing
the prefixes, but the same thing applies to the rest of xfrm.h :)

So if we decide to go that way, then we should do it to the entire
xfrm subsystem.

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