From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:07:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:07:53 -0500 Received: from rth.ninka.net ([216.101.162.244]:388 "EHLO rth.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:07:51 -0500 Subject: Re: IPv6 in the vanilla tree? From: "David S. Miller" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki "/ ?$B5HF#1QL@?(B" , Robert.L.Harris@rdlg.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20030213161100.A3399@infradead.org> References: <20030213135702.GE4377@rdlg.net> <20030213.230441.54189804.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20030213161100.A3399@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 13 Feb 2003 12:00:09 -0800 Message-Id: <1045166409.7435.6.camel@rth.ninka.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 08:11, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Btw, is there any chance you could make snapshot patches for 2.5 available > as you do for 2.4? Given the number of change in the 2.4 tree it might be > interesting what's still missing for 2.5. ipv6 should be basically identical between 2.4.x and 2.5.x The only difference is IPSEC, and even for that the ipv6 portions are still only in their most basic stages. I bet that all their 2.4.x patches apply pretty cleanly to 2.5.x