[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140506225039.GA22331@cloud>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 15:50:39 -0700
From: josh@...htriplett.org
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com, ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/24] net, diet: Make TCP metrics optional
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 05:11:17PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: josh@...htriplett.org
> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 14:08:15 -0700
>
> > On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:44:10PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> >> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 11:33:11 -0700
> >>
> >> > So why bothers 3.15+ Linux kernel? Why not use an old kernel e.g. 2.4.x?
> >> > 2.4.x kernel doesn't have so many new features you want to get rid of here.
> >>
> >> +1
> >
> > You've got to be kidding. Using 2.4 for a new network-connected device,
> > today? With all of its potential security holes that nobody is paying
> > attention to? Easier to fork 3.15 and trim it down than to do *that*.
> > And there *are* a huge number of useful features in 3.15+, not least of
> > which drivers for current hardware.
>
> So you're saying that the 2.4.x -stable maintainer did a shitty job and
> his work is worthless?
There's a difference between maintaining 2.4.x for all the existing
users who can't or won't upgrade, and introducing a *new* product
shipping with 2.4.x. There's something very wrong if 2.4.x works for
cases that 3.x doesn't; that would be a serious regression.
- Josh Triplett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists