Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > While the former might seem preferable, Pablo pointed out that there > > are more xt modules with link-time dependeny issues regarding ipv6, > > so lets go for 2). > > I had to do this recently for the ping socket as well: > > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=6d0bfe22611602f36617bc7aa2ffa1bbb2f54c67 > > +/* Compatibility glue so we can support IPv6 when it's compiled as a module */ > +struct pingv6_ops { > [...] > + int (*ipv6_chk_addr)(struct net *net, const struct in6_addr *addr, > + struct net_device *dev, int strict); > +}; > > Is it a better idea to share these structures and have just one > structure containing all IPv6 dummy functions? I think so, yes. > If it was in an include > file, it would be easily accessible to most of the tree even when > CONFIG_IPV6={n,m}, and we could have the ipv6 module init (and exit) > code just set all the function pointers. That way, we wouldn't have to > reinvent this particular wheel in multiple places of the code. FWIW, I agree. We should avoid having multiple copies of this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
