netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] disallow modular IPv6

To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] disallow modular IPv6
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:11:29 -0700
Cc: bunk@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, lksctp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20030929003229.GM1039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20030928225941.GW15338@xxxxxxxxx> <20030928231842.GE1039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030928232403.GX15338@xxxxxxxxx> <20030928233909.GG1039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030929001439.GY15338@xxxxxxxxx> <20030929003229.GM1039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:32:30 -0300
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Em Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 02:14:39AM +0200, Adrian Bunk escreveu:
> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 08:39:10PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > What about the following solution (the names and help texts for the
> > config options might not be optimal, I hope you understand the
> > intention):
> > 
> > config IPV6_SUPPORT
> >     bool "IPv6 support"
> > 
> > config IPV6_ENABLE
> >     tristate "enable IPv6"
> >     depends on IPV6_SUPPORT
> > 
> > IPV6_SUPPORT changes structs etc. and IPV6_ENABLE is responsible for 
> > ipv6.o .
> 
> Humm, and the idea is? This seems confusing, could you elaborate on why such
> scheme is a good thing?

I think the idea is totally broken.  At first, Adrian comments that
changing the layout of structs based upon a config option is broken,
then he proposes a config option that does nothing except change the
layout of structures.

The current situation is perfectly fine.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>