>>> CONFIG_IP_VS=m
>>> # CONFIG_IP_VS_DEBUG is not set
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_TAB_BITS=12
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_PROTO_TCP=y
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_PROTO_UDP=y
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_PROTO_ESP=y
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_PROTO_AH=y
These 'y' caused me to think that it wasn't modular.
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_RR=m
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_WRR=m
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_LC=m
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_WLC=m
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_LBLC=m
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_LBLCR=m
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_DH=m
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_SH=m
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_SED=m
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_NQ=m
>>> CONFIG_IP_VS_FTP=m
>> Ok, this is m/y mixed. Haven't tried it yet.
>
> Actually, I think that its completely modular.
So why the heck didn't it trigger on my system? Is it because the
include/net/* headers are not always included on ia64? Well, tant pis!
>> I'll reproduce it with your config. I didn't think of trying it with
>> mixed y/m settings. Following include is missing then:
>>
>> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
>
> Thanks, I found that linux/module.h was also needed.
Ok. I thought this would get included by any of the other headers. Well,
so long as it also compiles fine on your system, I'm good.
> After putting those two back into ip_vs_conn.c the build went
> find. I also tried a few other combinations, all on ia64, without issue.
> My diff is below. Could you recheck it?
Seems fine to me, thanks for testing this. I would have felt really bad
if I broke IPVS in mainline because of such changes.
>> Or do you think we could put all the needed includes into ip_vs.h and
>> simply be done with it?
>
> I spoke breifly with Dave about this, and he isn't very keen on it.
Fair enough.
> The problem with that approach, is that while its less work to
> maintain the headers by hand, it will likely result in uneeded
> includes in some cases.
How so? All includes nota bene have the prevailing:
#ifndef _FOOBAR_H
#define _FOOBAR_H
[...]
#endif /* _FOOBAR_H */
framework. So would this speak slightely against that? Also, from the
includes we take today, I reckon that in the end we half of the
include/{net,linux}/*.h is in our objects :). But you guys decide. I
could maybe run a call-graph.
> So all of LVS will get built when
> a given header is touched, where perhaps only half of it needed
> to be built.
Well, it does not happen so ofter that a core network related header is
touched to my avail.
> So with that in mind, could you continue in the vein of
> your original patch?
Sure thing. Your attached patch is fine; if you feel confident with our
changes, submit it.
Best regards,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
addr://Kasinostrasse 30, CH-5001 Aarau tel://++41 62 823 9355
http://www.terreactive.com fax://++41 62 823 9356
-------------------------------------------------------------
10 Jahre Kompetenz in IT-Sicherheit. 1996 - 2006
Wir sichern Ihren Erfolg. terreActive AG
-------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
