![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 07:15:49 +0300 Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> wrote: > > > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > > The problem is not just simple bugs that surface, it's deeper than > > > > > that. Deep structural problems is what plagues 2.6. > > > > > > > > > > Only a focused model may deal with such problems. > > > > > > > > can you at least provide a list of such structural problems? > > > > In fact, why don't you collect them and mail them out (bi)weekly... > > > > that may already do wonders. > > > > Look at what Adrian is doing with the regressions; although the > > > > response isn't 100% people DO pay attention to it.... so maybe if you > > > > post a "structural problems list" people will actually start working > > > > on things.. (and of course you can help too ;) > > > > > > Ok, things like OOM, scheduling, and block-io. > > > > If you want stability don't change these. But if you think you > > have better heuristics propose them for discussion. > > I don't think there is a lack of heuristics, nor is there a lack of > discussion. What is needed, is a realization of the problem. > > IOW, respective tree-owners need to come to a realization of the state of > their trees, problem or not. If it has a problem, that problem needs to be > fixed or backed out of stable and moved into dev. > > > > net looks ok, although I would suggest a redesign for 3.0. > > > > Facts, no vague pronouncements please. > > I meant structural OSI compliance. Read the book "Network Algorithmics"; it has a clear discussion of why building your stack like the protocol specification is a bad idea. > - 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/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-11 05:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||