From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] mpls: Allow mpls_gso and mpls_router to be built as modules Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:07:40 -0500 Message-ID: <87y4n4iv4j.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> References: <1426005479-21806-1-git-send-email-rshearma@brocade.com> <87y4n4kc09.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <54FF3283.7040702@brocade.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: "davem\@davemloft.net" , "netdev\@vger.kernel.org" To: Robert Shearman Return-path: Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:41785 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750976AbbCJSLT (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:11:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <54FF3283.7040702@brocade.com> (Robert Shearman's message of "Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:05:55 +0000") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Robert Shearman writes: > On 10/03/15 17:17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Robert Shearman writes: >> >>> CONFIG_MPLS=m doesn't result in a kernel module being built because it >>> applies to the net/mpls directory, rather than to .o files. >>> >>> So revert the MPLS menuitem to being a boolean and make MPLS_GSO and >>> MPLS_ROUTING tristates to allow mpls_gso and mpls_router modules to be >>> produced as desired. >> >> Good catch. But I am pretty certain this does not result in the mpls >> routing code in af_mpls being built as a module either. > > I'm pretty sure it does ;-) > > CC [M] net/mpls/af_mpls.o > LD [M] net/mpls/mpls_router.o > Building modules, stage 2. > MODPOST 3010 modules > LD [M] net/mpls/mpls_router.ko > > I deliberately split out the makefile rules so that the would be named > mpls_router, rather than af_mpls to avoid any potential confusion with > the mpls_gso module. Where do the files that go into mpls_router.o come from. Ah. I missed the mpls_route := af_mpls.o line. Eric