Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] disallow modular IPv6

[Jan Evert van Grootheest <j.grootheest@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Arnaldo,

I guess I am one of those I-wanna-triple-my-kernel-performance-
by-compiling-the-kernel-for-exactly-what-I-have hordes. Although I don't 
think it actually triples my kernel performance ))-:
Those people anyway recompile the kernel if they want some feature 
(un)included.

And I'd say RTM (ah, that should be RTH -- Read The Help) if they don't 
understand it. It's what I do.
I would expect those that know enough to reconfigure the kernel also 
know enough to understand the help that will undoubtedly be provided 
with this option?

-- Jan Evert

Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:

> Em Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:02:55AM +0100, David Woodhouse escreveu:
> > On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 21:32 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 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?
> >
> > The idea is that you then have ifdefs on CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT not on
> > CONFIG_IPV6_MODULE.
>
>
> That part I understood :)
>  
>
> > The underlying point being that your static kernel should not change if
> > you change an option from 'n' to 'm'.
>
>
> But that will only happen if CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT is always enabled, no?
>
>
> > It should only affect the kernel image if you change options to/from 'y'.
>
>
> That is a good goal, yes, so lets remove all the ifdefs around EXPORT_SYMBOL,
> etc, i.e.: add bloat for the simple case were I want a minimal kernel.
>
> Humm, so the user will have, in this case, these choices:
>
> 1. "I don't want IPV6 at all, not now, not ever":
>         CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT=N
>         CONFIG_IPV6=N  (this is implicit as this depends on
>                         CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT)
>         
> 2. "I think I may well want it the future, who knows? but not now...":
>         CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT=Y
>         CONFIG_IPV6=N
>         
> 3. "Nah, some of the users of this pre-compiled kernel will need it":
>         CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT=Y
>         CONFIG_IPV6=M
>         
> 4. "Yeah, IPV6 is COOL, how can somebody not use this piece of art?":
>         CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT=Y
>         CONFIG_IPV6=Y
>
> Isn't this confusing for the I-wanna-triple-my-kernel-performance-by-compiling-
> the-kernel-for-exactly-what-I-have hordes of users?
>
> - Arnaldo
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/