From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751978AbXLDGk1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 01:40:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751301AbXLDGkQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 01:40:16 -0500 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]:35609 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750931AbXLDGkO (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 01:40:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 01:40:13 -0500 From: Amos Waterland To: Simon Horman Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Updates to nfsroot documentation Message-ID: <20071204064012.GA31154@us.ibm.com> References: <20071204034345.GA30364@us.ibm.com> <20071204042438.GA11229@verge.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071204042438.GA11229@verge.net.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 01:24:40PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 10:43:45PM -0500, Amos Waterland wrote: > > The difference between ip=off and ip=::::::off has been a cause of much > > confusion. Document how each behaves, and do not contradict ourselves > > by saying that "off" is the default when in fact "any" is the default > > and is descibed as being so lower in the file. > > Is that really how it works? If so it sounds a bit silly to me. > Surely it would be desirable for ip=off and ip=::::::off to > do the same thing. Or am I missing the point? Yes, that is how it works. Pretty confusing, so I figured I'd better send in a patch to document it. In the ip=::::::off case, the code in ip_auto_config() sees that ic_enable is asserted but that ic_myaddr is NONE and proceeds to do autoconfiguration. I'd welcome comments from people on whether we should change how it works instead of just document it.