| To: | Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] disallow modular IPv6 |
| From: | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:32:30 -0300 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, lksctp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030929001439.GY15338@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Mail-followup-to: | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, lksctp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Organization: | Conectiva S.A. |
| References: | <20030928225941.GW15338@xxxxxxxxx> <20030928231842.GE1039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030928232403.GX15338@xxxxxxxxx> <20030928233909.GG1039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030929001439.GY15338@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.4i |
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? - Arnaldo |
| Previous by Date: | Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] disallow modular IPv6, Adrian Bunk |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] Memory Barriers on cosa wan driver, Felipe W Damasio |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] disallow modular IPv6, Adrian Bunk |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] disallow modular IPv6, David Woodhouse |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |