From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] af_mpls: fix undefined reference to ip6_route_output Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:17:29 +0200 Message-ID: <20150722201729.GB26717@pox.localdomain> References: <20150722.104926.1502608671575195516.davem@davemloft.net> <55AFEF4B.6070702@cumulusnetworks.com> <20150722195706.GA26717@pox.localdomain> <20150722.130444.1245167673786115378.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]:36990 "EHLO mail-wi0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751632AbbGVURc (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:17:32 -0400 Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so189105696wib.0 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:17:31 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150722.130444.1245167673786115378.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/22/15 at 01:04pm, David Miller wrote: > From: Thomas Graf > Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:57:06 +0200 > > > On 07/22/15 at 12:30pm, roopa wrote: > >> diff --git a/net/mpls/Kconfig b/net/mpls/Kconfig > >> index 5c467ef..2b28615 100644 > >> --- a/net/mpls/Kconfig > >> +++ b/net/mpls/Kconfig > >> @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ config NET_MPLS_GSO > >> > >> config MPLS_ROUTING > >> tristate "MPLS: routing support" > >> + depends on INET > >> + depends on IPV6 > >> ---help--- > >> Add support for forwarding of mpls packets. > > > > This looks like a much better fix to me and resolves the > > module/built-in dependency mess. > > It's only OK if we don't create a new hard dependency on IPV6, > which this patch does. > > Consitently across the tree we give the user the option of > using a bi-AF facility with or without IPV6. OK. I guess there is an MPLS routing use case which does not depend on INET or IPV6 if all routes specify an RTA_OIF. Not enough of an expert to know if that is the common case or not. Otherwise I would have argued to start dropping the special status for IPv6 and start treating IP dependency as a combination of both to promote it further/faster. It can still be explicitly disabled. Then again, I might be too optimistic in assuming that this will be the year of IPv6 ;-)