* David S. Miller [ref] 2005-05-03 15:27

On Wed, 4 May 2005 00:20:03 +0200
Thomas Graf [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

* David S. Miller [ref] 2005-05-03 14:27

quoted

Excellent observation.  The fact that we encode the "modifies state"
in the low bits of the RTM_* numbers has always been a source of
obscure bugs and hard to track down errors.

Patch applied, thanks.

Do you want 2.4 backports for all patches or just the xfrm
off-by-one fix?

Congratulations if you can find xfrm in the vanilla
2.4.x tree :-)

Heh, ok ok ;-> I think none of the patches need to be backported
then, although the type > RTM_MAX has an off-by-one issue the
current RTM_MAX is set to one below the start of the next block
so the behaviour matches the 2.6 tree.