Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:21:45 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Josh Paetzel <jpaetzel@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r323770 - in stable/11/sys: amd64/conf arm64/conf i386/conf powerpc/conf riscv/conf sparc64/conf Message-ID: <20170920172145.GA80852@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1505915939.3128744.1112434136.0864CA5F@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <201709191651.v8JGpp5v048489@repo.freebsd.org> <2B7D21C6-56EE-4ADE-815C-70477C137A82@gmail.com> <1505915939.3128744.1112434136.0864CA5F@webmail.messagingengine.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 08:58:59AM -0500, Josh Paetzel wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017, at 02:41 AM, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) wrote: > > > On Sep 19, 2017, at 09:51, Josh Paetzel <jpaetzel@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > New Revision: 323770 > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/323770 > > > > > > Log: > > > MFC: 323068 > > > > > > Allow kldload tcpmd5 > > > > Wasn't this reverted on ^/head ? > > Not this one. What was reverted on HEAD was the removal of options > IPSEC from GENERIC. > > The endgoal is options IPSEC and options IPSEC_SUPPORT in GENERIC, which > will allow someone running GENERIC to kldload tcpmd5. I'll shamelessly steal this thread to ask somewhat related question that was bothering me since the original botched commit: what is the reason behind IPSEC_SUPPORT option? If it does not cost anything, why not just optimize it away; if it does imply something more, can you shed some light on why is it needed (and/or might not be)? Thanks, ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170920172145.GA80852>