Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:23:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:23:04 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:49852 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:23:02 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7E4486.8080302@pobox.com> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:34:30 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik 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" CC: James Bourne , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Robert Love , Martin Mares , Alan Cox , Stephan von Krawczynski , szepe@pinerecords.com, arjanv@redhat.com, Pavel Machek 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> <920000.1048456387@[10.10.2.4]> <3E7E335C.2050509@pobox.com> <1240000.1048460079@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <1240000.1048460079@[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: 1846 Lines: 48 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/