Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Final 2.0 kernel? | From | Andi Kleen <> | Date | 24 Mar 1998 19:55:59 +0100 |
| |
Nigel Metheringham <Nigel.Metheringham@ThePLAnet.net> writes:
> bryan@terran.org said: > } I know this question has been asked a few times and I have seen the > } URL's flying around a bit. However, linux.kernel.org is still > } reporting 2.0.33 as the latest stable kernel and I'll take it's word > } for it. Are there plans for a formal 2.0.34 release, and if so, how > } close are we? I'm actually on the bleeding 2.1 kernel series myself, > } but I'm doing some work with 2.0 in a few places and I'd like to > } appraise the 33-34 diff, if/when one becomes available. :) > > Much as I hate to say it, it looks like we are going to produce some stuff > that *ought* to go into the 2.0.x series. > > Justification:- > -------------- > > Masq has a set of bugs in 2.1.x and I believe (but have not tested, > although some recent bug reports certainly tend to confirm) that the same > set also exist in 2.0.x. The problem is that (some of) the checksum > generate/check routines do not correctly handle ip options resulting in > mangled/dropped packets. This is a pretty rare problem at the moment, but > David Miller's funky new network code slops options all over the place. > This would mean that without a fix we would have an inter-operability > problem between 2.0/2.2 kernels.
Not IP options, but TCP options.
Note that Win98 uses TimeStamp/Window Scaling too, so when there are really bugs in this regard you should receive lots of bug reports soon. Also alot of other OS do [at least IRIX, 4.4BSD]
-Andi
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |