From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Julius Volz" Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 RFC 00/00] Add first IPv6 support to IPVS Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 11:22:14 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1220273782-19901-1-git-send-email-juliusv@google.com> <20080902081841.GM13730@verge.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, kaber@trash.net, vbusam@google.com To: "Simon Horman" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080902081841.GM13730@verge.net.au> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: lvs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 02:55:57PM +0200, Julius Volz wrote: >> I now managed to rework the IPVS IPv6 patches in a way that the kernel >> builds after each patch in the series. Sometimes, this adds some >> ugliness in the form of temporary constructs which are introduced in one >> patch and deleted in the next ones. I've also integrated other small bug >> fixes and cleanups from comments on the mailing lists. > > Thanks, I appreciate that. I think that these patches are starting > to look quite nice. I've posted some coments (all relating to style I > think) to some of the patches. Nothing else has caught my eye so far. Great, thanks! I will now fix all the style issues you pointed out in the other mails! >> Note: these patches are not based on net-2.6 anymore, but on lvs-2.6: > > I've verified that these patches apply against the lvs-next-2.6 branch of > of the lvs-2.6 tree. Which means they should also apply against Dave's > net-next-2.6 tree (net-next-2.6 and lvs-next-2.6 are currently converged). > Which would seem to be the most likely target for these changes at this > time. That would be awesome! >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/horms/lvs-2.6.git >> >> - Full kernel patch in one file: >> http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~volz/ipvs_ipv6/ipvs_ipv6_v2.patch >> >> While not all IPv6 features are working or tested, existing IPv4 features >> should still work as before. However, to use any of the new features, you >> will need a new ipvsadm with support for genetlink and IPv6: > > I'm comfortable with merging things in that state. > > It seems quite reasonable to add IPv6 features in an iterative > manner so long as IPv4 keeps working. Yes, people should test especially if there are any problems with the existing IPv4 features... Julius -- Julius Volz - Corporate Operations - SysOps Google Switzerland GmbH - Identification No.: CH-020.4.028.116-1