From: David Stevens <dlstevens@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:25:39 -0700

quoted text
> I considered passing the the real setsockopt function as an argument
> to what is now compat_mc_setsockopt() before putting the direct calls in.
> By doing that, we can only get in there with a v6 setsockopt when v6 is
> loaded, since the calls to it are from the corresponding 
> compat_setsockopt.
> Is that too ugly?
> 
>         Could also make these  return pointers to the new koptval and 
> koptlen,
> which is really the only thing we need outside the 
> compat_ipXX_setsockopt()'s.

If you're going to use callbacks, and I'd be also asking you to
guard this code with CONFIG_IPV6 as appropriate, why not simply
put it into the ipv6 socket option handling code?

I really see no value putting this in some generic location
if we have to deal with those issues, by adding callbacks and
ifdef'ery.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html