Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Apr 1999 22:47:31 -0400 (EDT) | From | Geof Goodrum <> | Subject | Re: Linux TCP Fixing everyones problems? WAS(Re: TCP push sometimes missing under 2.2.5? |
| |
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Can you _imagine_ the pain of maintaining multiple different > incompatible sets of tcp behaviour in the kernel? It's a crazy idea. ... > The world has an internet now. It really doesn't make much sense to > compile kernels which have problems talking to certain types of machine, > since as soon as you are on the net it's only a matter of time before > you meet one of them.
Granted. I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I agree with previous comments that Linux shouldn't have to fix problems with other systems, but I'm also pragmatic.
I haven't explored the kernel tcp code, so I didn't know how the workarounds were implemented. I was thinking that they might be clearly separated and commented exceptions for broken implementations that could be ifdef'd without a great deal of effort. Apparently not.
If you had an Intranet without any misbehaving systems and no Internet connection (!) or an isolated Beowulf cluster, leaving the workarounds out would seem to be another appealing feature of a custom kernel. Not that I would expect a significant performance difference, but "significant" is relative.
Might I note that the PC/TCP client workaround should not be in the kernel configuration using your argument? Apparently, workarounds are made configurable on a case-by-case basis. I expect the workarounds themselves can create problems for well-behaved systems.
All of the above MHO from an end user - not kernel developer - viewpoint.
Thanks for the feedback (and the next gen filesystem development!).
Geof Goodrum Voice: +1-301-457-5100 Email: Geoffrey.P.Goodrum@noaa.gov
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |