Messages in this thread | | | From | Jay Vosburgh <> | Subject | Re: [Bonding-devel] 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5 | Date | Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:24:14 -0800 |
| |
Brian Haley <brian.haley@hp.com> wrote:
>Jay Vosburgh wrote: [...] >> 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. > >This separate bonding_ipv6 module would have to register itself with the >"core" one with a new proto_ops of some sort. Calls are made for the >appropriate method, for example bond_ops->send_gratuitous(bond). We'd >change the IPv4 code too. It's just a theory, does make things more >complicated.
I don't see any reason to change the IPv4 bits; there won't ever be a case of ipv4 not being loaded, and this would just add the complexity of a registration gizmo with no real benefit. A "bonding ipv6 ops" would be strictly a hack to deal with ipv6 module dependencies for cases when the kernel is built with CONFIG_IPV6 but the ipv6 module itself is prevented from loading.
A registration gizmo doesn't need to be especially complicated; there's only three functions in bond_ipv6.c that are called from the bonding core: bond_send_unsolicited_na, and the ipv6 notifier register / unregister. The bonding_ipv6 module can simply be bond_ipv6.c, which calls some exported "hey, bond_send_unsol_na is here" thing in the bonding core during init and another "hey, send_unsol_na is gone" during unload. The bonding_ipv6 module can do its own notifier registration handing.
>> To answer your question, I have come across this (aliasing ipv6 >> to nothing in modprobe.conf to disable IPv6) from time to time, but >> didn't think of it when the NA code was added to bonding. > >So I guess I'll start hacking the above, unless someone has a better >suggestion.
Well, I think this is pretty heinous, but I don't have a better idea at the moment.
-J
--- -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com
| |