Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:34:30 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Ptrace hole / Linux 2.2.25 |
| |
Martin J. Bligh wrote: >>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). > > > O(1) sched may be a bad example ... how about the fact that mainline VM > is totally unstable? Witness, for instance, the buffer_head stuff. Fixes > for that have been around for ages.
"totally unstable" being defined as: My computers don't crash, and my 100%-mainline test kernels pass various Cerberus/LTP/crashme runs.
Of course, I am not totally focused on multi-million-dollar computers, so maybe my perspective is skewed... ;-)
> The real philosophical question is "what is mainline 2.4 _for_"?
It's the 2.4 tree that's missing all the vendor junk unacceptable for mainline.
> Yes, the real answer is to get 2.6 out the door, and move people onto it. > But that will take a little while ... would be nice to get some way to > alleviate the pain in the meantime.
Fixes should be applied to 2.4-mainline, certainly. Anything else just wastes developer brain cycles and slows the move to 2.6.
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/
| |