On Tue, Dec 25, 2007 at 08:55:43PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:59:05 +0900
>
> > Recently the documentation in Documentation/nfsroot.txt was
> > update to note that in fact ip=off and ip=::off as the
> > latter is ignored and
From: Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:59:05 +0900
> Recently the documentation in Documentation/nfsroot.txt was
> update to note that in fact ip=off and ip=::off as the
> latter is ignored and the default (on) is used.
>
> This was certainly a step in the direction
Recently the documentation in Documentation/nfsroot.txt was
update to note that in fact ip=off and ip=::off as the
latter is ignored and the default (on) is used.
This was certainly a step in the direction of reducing confusion.
But it seems to me that the code ought to be fixed up so that
ip=
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 03:21:21PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:57:32 +0900
>
> > @@ -1414,9 +1414,16 @@ late_initcall(ip_auto_config);
> > */
> > static int __init ic_proto_name(char *name)
> > {
> > + if (!name) {
> > +
From: Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:57:32 +0900
> @@ -1414,9 +1414,16 @@ late_initcall(ip_auto_config);
> */
> static int __init ic_proto_name(char *name)
> {
> + if (!name) {
> + return 1;
> + }
I do not see any circumstance under which this p
Recently the documentation in Documentation/nfsroot.txt was
update to note that in fact ip=off and ip=::off as the
latter is ignored and the default (on) is used.
This was certainly a step in the direction of reducing confusion.
But it seems to me that the code ought to be fixed up so that
ip=
