On 01/18/2013 09:20 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Chris,
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:35:27 +1300, Chris Packham judge.packham@gmail.com wrote:
From: Chris Packham chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz
This series so far covers the introduction of a IP6addr_t and printing/parsing of addresses.
As a general comment, I heartily welcome IPv6 support (even though I suspect there is quite a lot to be done on it, if only configuration), but I wonder how this fits in with the general line of not adding dead code in U-Boot. Will we make an exception for IPv6 and accept this RFC once it is officially submitted? Or do we collect small, reviewable RFCs for various IPv6 aspects but apply them in one go? Or do we create a branch or tree where IPv6 will get integrated step by step until solid enough for mainline inclusion? Or was this decided already and I missed it?
Amicalement,
Good question. Basically we have some out of tree code that implements a basic IPv6 stack. I'm drip feeding the code in pieces to avoid just dumping it on people and because the current code wouldn't meet u-boot's standards.
Putting my IPv6 promoter hat on I hope that it won't stay dead for long :)
Personally I'm happy to have a long running series and periodically send updates to the list. I have a repository on github[1] which has an ipv6 branch collecting my changes if anyone wants to pull it down for their own testing. If we want to apply some of the simple stuff early that's fine by me.
Regards, Chris -- [1] git://github.com/cpackham/u-boot.git