[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <499B3A8F.7070609@free.fr>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:30:39 +0100
From: Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@...e.fr>
To: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
CC: Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>,
"J.A. Magallon" <jamagallon@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@...l.ru>,
bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5
Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> I'm not sure either of those really helps. Distro kernels are
> built with CONFIG_IPV6 (and would have the CONFIG_BONDING_IPV6_DINGUS
> enabled as well), so the common case users would have it enabled, too.
>
> Putting the ipv6 bits into a different module might not help,
> either, because the "core" bonding code would still have the call to the
> ipv6 functions. Unless there's some magic way to somehow know at
> runtime whether or not the ipv6 module is loaded, and only try to
> resolve those symbols if ipv6 is loaded. That seems complicated.
What about aliasing ipv6 to a dummy module "dummy-ipv6-for-bonding" that
only provide the required symbols and do (close to) nothing ?
Just my two cents.
Nicolas.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists