Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S263953AbTCWWJu>; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:09:50 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S263954AbTCWWJu>; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:09:50 -0500
Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:45748 "EHLO
	www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S263953AbTCWWJt>;
	Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:09:49 -0500
Message-ID: <3E7E335C.2050509@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:21:16 -0500
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
Organization: none
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021213 Debian/1.2.1-2.bunk
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
CC: James Bourne <jbourne@mtroyal.ab.ca>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>, Martin Mares <mj@ucw.cz>,
       Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>, Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>,
       szepe@pinerecords.com, arjanv@redhat.com, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Subject: Re: Ptrace hole / Linux 2.2.25
References: <20030323193457.GA14750@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz><200303231938.h2NJcAq14927@devserv.devel.redhat.com><20030323194423.GC14750@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1048448838.1486.12.camel@phantasy.awol.org><20030323195606.GA15904@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1048450211.1486.19.camel@phantasy.awol.org><402760000.1048451441@[10.10.2.4]> <20030323203628.GA16025@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <Pine.LNX.4.51.0303231410250.17155@skuld.mtroyal.ab.ca> <920000.1048456387@[10.10.2.4]>
In-Reply-To: <920000.1048456387@[10.10.2.4]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1359
Lines: 35

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/