Re: git: e72c522858cb - main - divert(4): make it compilable and working without INET
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2022 19:14:41 UTC
On Wed, 7 Sep 2022, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 06:16:07PM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > B> > B> > On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 06:39:53AM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > B> > B> > B> > B> > Author: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> > B> > B> > B> > B> > AuthorDate: 2022-08-30 22:09:21 +0000 > B> > B> > B> > B> > Commit: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> > B> > B> > B> > B> > CommitDate: 2022-08-30 22:09:21 +0000 > B> > B> > B> > B> > > B> > B> > B> > B> > divert(4): make it compilable and working without INET > B> > B> > B> > B> > > B> > B> > B> > B> > Differential revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D36383 > B> > B> > B> > B> > B> > B> > B> > B> Well, almost at least.... > B> > B> > B> > > B> > B> > B> > I wonder why LINT-NOINET builds without this?? > B> > B> > B> > B> > B> > B> I wondered the same last night.. I would be good to find out? > B> > B> > > B> > B> > Ok, I think that assumption that sysctl parts of divert require > B> > B> > INET were just wrong, that's why LINT-NOINET builds. > B> > B> > B> > B> Not entirely. It's because sys/netinet/in_proto.c uncodonitionally > B> > B> currently provides _net_inet for the sysctl. > B> > B> The reason for that is that a lot of AF independent sysctls were initially > B> > B> put under inet but are equally used for inet6 or neither in the network stack. > B> > B> > B> > B> You will need at least #if defined(INET6) || defined(INET) around the sysctls > B> > B> in divert.c then. > B> > B> > B> > B> A LINT-NOIP kernel will complain about the missing symbol if we keep compiling > B> > B> divert without INET or INET6 in the kernel: > B> > > B> > My goal was not to make divert(4) supported on NOIP kernel. The goal was to make > B> > it supported on NOINET, an IPv6 only kernel. I don't see any value for divert(4) > B> > on a kernel without either stack. > B> > B> then we should stop compiling it in that case. > > Do we compile it for NOIP? oh you fixed it this morning here in aa74cc6d6f995. Thanks! Case closed :) -- Bjoern A. Zeeb r15:7