From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Evert van Grootheest Subject: Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] disallow modular IPv6 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:28:24 +0200 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <3F784188.8030600@euronext.nl> 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> <1064826174.295 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, lksctp-developers@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo In-Reply-To: <20030929141548.GS1039@conectiva.com.br> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Arnaldo, I guess I am one of those I-wanna-triple-my-kernel-performance- by-compiling-the-kernel-for-exactly-what-I-have hordes. Although I don't think it actually triples my kernel performance ))-: Those people anyway recompile the kernel if they want some feature (un)included. And I'd say RTM (ah, that should be RTH -- Read The Help) if they don't understand it. It's what I do. I would expect those that know enough to reconfigure the kernel also know enough to understand the help that will undoubtedly be provided with this option? -- Jan Evert Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:02:55AM +0100, David Woodhouse escreveu: >>On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 21:32 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 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? >> >>The idea is that you then have ifdefs on CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT not on >>CONFIG_IPV6_MODULE. > > > That part I understood :) > > >>The underlying point being that your static kernel should not change if >>you change an option from 'n' to 'm'. > > > But that will only happen if CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT is always enabled, no? > > >>It should only affect the kernel image if you change options to/from 'y'. > > > That is a good goal, yes, so lets remove all the ifdefs around EXPORT_SYMBOL, > etc, i.e.: add bloat for the simple case were I want a minimal kernel. > > Humm, so the user will have, in this case, these choices: > > 1. "I don't want IPV6 at all, not now, not ever": > CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT=N > CONFIG_IPV6=N (this is implicit as this depends on > CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT) > > 2. "I think I may well want it the future, who knows? but not now...": > CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT=Y > CONFIG_IPV6=N > > 3. "Nah, some of the users of this pre-compiled kernel will need it": > CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT=Y > CONFIG_IPV6=M > > 4. "Yeah, IPV6 is COOL, how can somebody not use this piece of art?": > CONFIG_IPV6_SUPPORT=Y > CONFIG_IPV6=Y > > Isn't this confusing for the I-wanna-triple-my-kernel-performance-by-compiling- > the-kernel-for-exactly-what-I-have hordes of users? > > - Arnaldo > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >