On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:11:29PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:32:30 -0300
> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?
> 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 change the
> layout of structures.
> The current situation is perfectly fine.
I did perhaps express my opinion not clearly.
My personal opinions:
It's OK that setting an option to y changes structs or whatever else in
It's not OK if adding a module changes the layout of structs compiled
into the kernel.
Modules have many advantages, one advantage is e.g. that they allow
generic distribution kernels without resulting in huge kernel images.
Another advantage is that you can later add modules to a running kernel,
you can compile a module for your kernel and insert it without rebooting
the machine. This is currently not possible with moduler IPv6.
That was my personal opinion.
My opinions seem to be very close to the opinions of David Woodhouse, so
there's no need to repeat your discussion.
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed