[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: Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:38:30 -0400
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, lksctp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:15:48 -0300." <20030929141548.GS1039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20030928225941.GW15338@xxxxxxxxx> <20030928231842.GE1039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030928232403.GX15338@xxxxxxxxx> <20030928233909.GG1039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030929001439.GY15338@xxxxxxxxx> <20030929003229.GM1039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1064826174.29569.13.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030929141548.GS1039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:15:48 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo said:

> 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=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=N
> 3. "Nah, some of the users of this pre-compiled kernel will need it":
>       CONFIG_IPV6=M
> 4. "Yeah, IPV6 is COOL, how can somebody not use this piece of art?":
>       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?

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 implemented properly (it may be, I just 
actually looked it over)?

Attachment: pgpI3uiDvqF8C.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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