Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] disallow modular IPv6

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 10:21 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 09:26:38AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > The suggestions I see do nothing to enhance the kernel tree as it currently
> > > stands.  If you wish to prevent the kernel image from changing due to
> > > out-of-tree modules being built, fine, but don't impose this restriction
> > > upon in-kernel modules.
> > 
> > It's a matter of taste. As I said, it's your right to disagree.
> > 
> > Some time during 2.7 I'm sure one of the many people who agree with
> > Adrian and myself will send patches to Linus and he'll get to arbitrate.
> 
> 
> FWIW, I agree with Dave.  

It would be difficult to have an opinion on the matter without agreeing
with one of us :)

>  the user may
> have a really hard time figuring out that CONFIG_infrastructure is the
> way to make a particular device driver appear.

To take your chosen example of CONFIG_NET_RADIO.... if your user cannot
determine that in order to enable support for her WaveLAN card she must
first enable the option marked
"Wireless LAN drivers (non-hamradio) & Wireless Extensions"
then I respectfully suggest that you quietly take her out back and shoot
her.

> For that reason, I tend to prefer the approach of simply enabling a
> device driver, and then letting that force a change in the base kernel
> to include any necessary base infrastructure in the kernel if
> necessary. 

Unlike the approach taken by your example.

Note that in that particular case we'd probably have the 'guard' option
"Wireless LAN drivers" _anyway_, even if nothing at _all_ depends upon
it other than configuration options.

Just like we have CONFIG_NET_ETHERNET, CONFIG_NET_VENDOR_3COM,
CONFIG_NET_ISA, CONFIG_NET_PCI and other similar options to keep the
config sane.

Such 'infrastructure' options, whether they actually make a difference
to the resulting kernel or not, are perfectly normal, acceptable and
understandable.

-- 
dwmw2