netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] disallow modular IPv6

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] disallow modular IPv6
From: Olivier Galibert <galibert@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:06:23 +0200
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bunk@xxxxxxxxx, acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, lksctp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20030930010855.095c2c35.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Olivier Galibert <galibert@xxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bunk@xxxxxxxxx, acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, lksctp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20030928225941.GW15338@xxxxxxxxx> <20030928231842.GE1039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030928232403.GX15338@xxxxxxxxx> <20030929220916.19c9c90d.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <1064903562.6154.160.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030930000302.3e1bf8bb.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <1064907572.21551.31.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030930010855.095c2c35.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 01:08:55AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:39:33 +0100
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 99% or more of tristate options can be enabled without affecting the
> > kernel, and it is expected that such options can be set to 'm' later,
> > while the kernel in question is actually running, then built and loaded
> > without a reboot.
> 
> Expected by whom?  Not by me.

By me for instance.  I'm used to modules having no influence until
loaded, even at compilation time.  I'm used to in-tree and out-of-tree
modules to have exactly the same status (ignoring the binary-only
modules crap).


> > We should strive to keep this true.
> 
> For things _OUTSIDE_ the kernel, surely.  But inside the kernel
> tree I don't see any value in this new restriction.
> 
> >     Allow this kernel to ever support IPv6? Y/N
> >     Build IPv6 support? Y/M/N
> 
> And I still think this is a complete joke.

I suspect what you _really_ want is a "disable ipv6 entirely"
depending on CONFIG_EMBEDDED which would remove the then bloat.
Normal users would never see it and the meaning would be obvious for
the ones who care.

  OG.

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