Well, maybe you are right, but I certainly liked the feature, that I could just add a module to a currently running kernel's configuration, compile and insmod it. But, if this is how it is (going to
FWIW, I agree with Dave. Most of the time, enabling a device driver won't cause the core kernel to change, sure. However, there will be cases (such as enabling wireless ethernet drivers as modules, f
It seems modular IPv6 doesn't work 100% reliable, e.g. after looking at the code it doesn't seem to be a good idea to compile a kernel without IPv6 support and later build and install IPv6 modules. I
Em Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:59:41AM +0200, Adrian Bunk escreveu: Please, don't... We're going in the all modules direction, not the other way around, distro (general purpose) kernels would get big blo
E.g. from include/net/tcp.h: <-- snip --> ... struct tcp_skb_cb { union { struct inet_skb_parm h4; struct inet6_skb_parm h6; } header; /* For incoming frames */ ... <-- snip --> This is broken since
Em Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 01:24:03AM +0200, Adrian Bunk escreveu: Its not just this, look at all the CONFIG_IPV6 related #ifdefs in the core tcp/ip v4 code, the point is that this is a (currently) need
Em Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 08:39:10PM -0300, Arnaldo C. Melo escreveu: s/leaving it in the kernel/making it always statically linked in the kernel if selected/g Sorry... - Arnaldo
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_ENAB
Em Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 02:14:39AM +0200, Adrian Bunk escreveu: Humm, and the idea is? This seems confusing, could you elaborate on why such scheme is a good thing? - Arnaldo
IPv6 modularity is critical for all the Linux distributions who wish to give the users the possibility to turn on IPv6 if they wish, but turning it on by default for everybody is not realistic. IMHO,
The idea is that you then have ifdefs on CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT not on CONFIG_IPV6_MODULE. The underlying point being that your static kernel should not change if you change an option from 'n' to 'm'. I
Em Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:02:55AM +0100, David Woodhouse escreveu: That part I understood :) But that will only happen if CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT is always enabled, no? That is a good goal, yes, so lets
No. It (kernel changing according to 'm' options) happens at the moment, and it's evil and broken. Adrian proposes that it should not happen at all. The suggestion is that if your kernel was built wi
I guess I am one of those I-wanna-triple-my-kernel-performanceby-compiling-the-kernel-for-exactly-what-I-have hordes. Although I don't think it actually triples my kernel performance ))-: Those peop
Author: aldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:38:30 -0400
No, this is the behavior we want, and we can write Kconfig help entries that explain it. Anybody want to do a sanity check against CONFIG_IP6_NF_IPTABLES - that looks like another gotcha if it isn't
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 chang
Not in this case. For things inside the kernel, what ipv6 is doing is completely legal. Changing your config setting in any way in the main kernel tree can change just about anything else in the kern