On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:03 AM mark sheppard <macanao...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> an observation on IPv4_supported and IPV6_supported for your consideration > > <BIKESHED> > > both, IPv4_support and IPv6_support use socket creation in the > appropriate AF domain as a > a verification of support, but the v6 version also checks that there is a > set of > address binding or ipv6 address configuration by accessing > /proc/net/if_inet6 > > afaik there is no equivalent /proc/net/if_inet or if_inet4, thus the ipv4 > version more > liberal in its deliberation. > > as such, it is possible that for IPv4 the support is available but not yet > configured, > but that has no impact on availability. > For IPv6 that the support is enabled but not yet configured and that will > impact the > availability evaluation. > > Implicit in this is the /proc/net/if_inet6 considered absolutely > necessary ? > > this has at times been the cause of spurious intermittent test failures if > my memory is correct. > > Another consideration is that if an application starts when IPv6 has yet > to be configured properly, > it will most likely lead to the application requiring a restart after the > IPv6 to access IPv6 functionality > > > </BIKESHED> > > regards > Mark > IIUC, you're saying that the IPv6_supported() may return false when it should return true in some cases? That's not directly related to this change, since this change doesn't touch IPv6_supported(). A repro of intermittent test failures or discussion about this in the past would be good. Maybe you could file a bug or propose a patch?
