does busybox actually support IPv6?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 18 May 2006, Jason Schoon wrote:

> On 5/18/06, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday at mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >   i ask given the following snippets from networking/interface.c:
> >
> > ===========================
> >
> > ...
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_FEATURE_IPV6
> > # define HAVE_AFINET6 1           <--  OK ...
> > #else
> > # undef HAVE_AFINET6
> > #endif
> >
> > ...
> >
> > #ifdef KEEP_UNUSED
> >
> > static int flag_unx;
> > static int flag_inet;
> >
> > static struct aftrans_t {
> >         char *alias;
> >         char *name;
> >         int *flag;
> > } aftrans[] = {
> >
> >         {
> >         "ip", "inet", &flag_inet},
> > #ifdef HAVE_AFINET6                <-- ... and ...
> >         {
> >         "ip6", "inet6", &flag_inet6},    <-- hello?
> > #endif
> >         {
> >         "inet", "inet", &flag_inet},
> > #ifdef HAVE_AFINET6
> >         {
> >         "inet6", "inet6", &flag_inet6},
> > #endif
> >         {
> >         "unix", "unix", &flag_unx}, {
> >         "tcpip", "inet", &flag_inet},
> >         {
> >         0, 0, 0}
> > };
> >
> > ...
> > ===========================
> >
> >   notice what's missing?  a definition of "flag_inet6".  wouldn't this
> > be a problem?  or is there something happening here just too tricky
> > for me to appreciate?
> >
> > rday
> >
>
> Our products are now all mandated to support IPv6, and I use it very
> often. I haven't seen any issues currently with Busybox and IPv6.
> I have submitted patches for a few things missing in the past, and
> have a few more pending.
>
> Did you notice that all of that code is wrapped in a #ifdef
> KEEP_UNUSED, so it is not currently active?  (I dislike that name
> greatly BTW, I think wrapping it in an #if 0 or just deleting it
> would be much cleaner, but Manuel may have had his reasons).

i did notice that KEEP_UNUSED test -- i also noticed that it's
exclusive to that single source file interface.c.  i have no real
objection to hanging on to code for future consideration as long as
it's labelled clearly that way (yes, "KEEP_UNUSED" is kind of a lame
name.  how about "IN_PROGRESS"?  or "UNDER_CONSTRUCTION"?  :-)

in any event, i've always felt that even code that is currently
de-activated should still be syntactically and semantically correct as
much as possible.  personally, i'd add that missing definition just
for the fun of it, but that's just me.

rday