Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:32:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:32:37 -0500 Received: from 205-158-62-136.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.136]:25741 "HELO fs5-4.us4.outblaze.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:32:36 -0500 Subject: Re: Ptrace hole / Linux 2.2.25 From: Felipe Alfaro Solana To: Jeff Garzik Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , James Bourne , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Robert Love , Martin Mares , Alan Cox , Stephan von Krawczynski , szepe@pinerecords.com, arjanv@redhat.com, Pavel Machek In-Reply-To: <3E7E335C.2050509@pobox.com> 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> <920000.1048456387@[10.10.2.4]> <3E7E335C.2050509@pobox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1048459411.2721.14.camel@teapot> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-1) Date: 23 Mar 2003 23:43:32 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1406 Lines: 32 On Sun, 2003-03-23 at 23:21, Jeff Garzik 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). > > Surely it is better to concentrate developer time and mindshare on > making 2.6 sane? I'm no hardcore kernel hacker, but I fully agree with you. 2.4 is pretty stable... Introducing new code (VM, IDE, etc) is just a bit risky, more even when current 2.4 is 2.4.21 (I would say mature enough). ________________________________________________________________________ Felipe Alfaro Solana Linux Registered User #287198 http://counter.li.org - 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/