On 11/5/19 5:33 AM, Jon Maloy wrote: > Tuong, Ying > I am ok with a kernel option, as long as it is enabled by default. I can > imagine smaller embedded systems where the deployer want a small module, and > encryption anyway is managed differently, or not at all. > > ///jon
When I gave the suggestion to add a new kernel option, I also ever figured out how to reach this goal based on this series of patches. In my opinion, we don't need to modify the patches of making some preparation things. For example, we don't need to change patch #1 at all. Patch #3, #4 and #5 are almost completely separate with current code. The only thing is that we need to consider how to modify patch #2. In sum, it looks like it's not very difficult to introduce the new kernel configuration option. The kernel option not only can help us keep TIPC module size smaller, but also can help us maintain it easily particularly with TIPC becoming more and more complex. Lastly, probably it can help to make it possible that the series of patches can be easily accepted by upstream if user can disable the feature with a kernel option. _______________________________________________ tipc-discussion mailing list tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
