From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] disallow modular IPv6
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:11:29 -0700
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Message-ID: <20030929221129.7689e088.davem@redhat.com>
References: <20030928225941.GW15338@fs.tum.de>
	<20030928231842.GE1039@conectiva.com.br>
	<20030928232403.GX15338@fs.tum.de>
	<20030928233909.GG1039@conectiva.com.br>
	<20030929001439.GY15338@fs.tum.de>
	<20030929003229.GM1039@conectiva.com.br>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: bunk@fs.tum.de, netdev@oss.sgi.com, pekkas@netcore.fi,
        lksctp-developers@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br>
In-Reply-To: <20030929003229.GM1039@conectiva.com.br>
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:32:30 -0300
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br> 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.