Josh Carroll
2008-Sep-16 16:42 UTC
recent MFC of soreceive_dgram breaks kernels without INET6 option
Hello, I just csup'd this morning and now I cannot build a kernel that does not include INET6. I can send my KERNCONF, but it is sufficient to create a kernel config with: include GENERIC nooption INET6 Here's the error during kernel compilation of a kernel config without "options INET6" in the kernel config: /usr/src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c: In function 'udp_inpcb_init': /usr/src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c:170: error: 'udp6_usrreqs' undeclared (first use in this function) /usr/src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c:170: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once /usr/src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c:170: error: for each function it appears in.) It looks like the MFC for the new soreceive_dgram stuff is the culprit. Can this can be fixed to not require IPv6? I have no desire to include it in my kernel, but if that will be the requirement going forward, perhaps a note in UPDATING is in order? Thanks, Josh
Robert Watson
2008-Sep-16 19:59 UTC
recent MFC of soreceive_dgram breaks kernels without INET6 option
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Josh Carroll wrote:> I just csup'd this morning and now I cannot build a kernel that does not > include INET6. I can send my KERNCONF, but it is sufficient to create a > kernel config with: > > include GENERIC nooption INET6 > > Here's the error during kernel compilation of a kernel config without > "options INET6" in the kernel config: > > /usr/src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c: In function 'udp_inpcb_init': > /usr/src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c:170: error: 'udp6_usrreqs' > undeclared (first use in this function) > /usr/src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c:170: error: (Each undeclared > identifier is reported only once > /usr/src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c:170: error: for each function it appears in.) > > It looks like the MFC for the new soreceive_dgram stuff is the culprit. > > Can this can be fixed to not require IPv6? I have no desire to include it in > my kernel, but if that will be the requirement going forward, perhaps a note > in UPDATING is in order?This was an oversight on my part -- none of our LINT build targets (apparently) excludes INET6. It's fixed easily with an ifdef, and I've received re@ approval to merge the fix, so it's in the tree as of about an hour or two ago. If you experience continuing problems after a cvsup, please let me know. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge