Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:21:16 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Ptrace hole / Linux 2.2.25 |
| |
Martin J. Bligh wrote: > I think this would be valuable .. the other thing that really needs to > be present is a "common vendor" kernel where changes that are common > to most distros are merged (eg O(1) scheduler, etc). Personally, I think > that's what mainline should be doing ... but if other people disagree, > then I, at least, would see value in a separate tree to do this.
akpm has suggested something like this in the past. I respectfully disagree.
The 2.4 kernel will not benefit from constant churn of backporting core kernel changes like a new scheduler. We need to let it settle, simply get it stable, and concentrate on fixing key problems in 2.6. Otherwise you will never have a stable 2.4 tree, and it will look suspiciously more and more like 2.6 as time goes by. Constantly breaking working configurations and changing core behaviors is _not_ the way to go for 2.4.
I see 2.4 O(1) scheduler and similar features as _pain_ brought on the vendors by themselves (and their customers).
Surely it is better to concentrate developer time and mindshare on making 2.6 sane?
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |