From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: Should we move IPVS out of net/ipv4 now? Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:52:22 +1000 Message-ID: <20080918235220.GD13536@verge.net.au> References: <48D14E6D.4020407@redhat.com> <20080917.131445.19943427.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , csnook@redhat.com, lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Julius Volz Return-path: Received: from kirsty.vergenet.net ([202.4.237.240]:48993 "EHLO kirsty.vergenet.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754452AbYIRXwY (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:52:24 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:04:28PM +0200, Julius Volz wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:14 PM, David Miller wrote: > > From: Chris Snook > > Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:37:33 -0400 > > > >> Julius Volz wrote: > >> > Since IPVS now does partial IPv6, should we finally move it from > >> > "net/ipv4/ipvs" to "net" or to "net/netfilter"? I posted that patch a > >> > long time ago, but that was before any of the actual v6 features, so > >> > there was probably no interest. > >> > >> Whatever the netfilter people want is fine with me. > > > > I think, especially in the long term, putting IPVS under net/netfilter/ > > is the right thing to do. > > Ok thanks, I'll send the patch for that once lvs-next-2.6 or > net-next-2.6 builds for ARCH=um again (there seems to be some breakage > at the moment)... Once net-next-2.6 is working again, let me know and I'll pull it into lvs-next-2.6. -- Simon Horman VA Linux Systems Japan K.K., Sydney, Australia Satellite Office H: www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: www.valinux.co.jp/en