Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:14:39 -0700 | From | "David S. Miller" <> | Subject | Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 |
| |
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:07:20 -0600 From: Cort Dougan <cort@fsmlabs.com>
Do you really think that's forcing people to concentrate of fixing bugs? Tell me if you disagree, I'd like to understand how you see that. I see that 2.4 is getting all kinds of changes merged in that should be going on with 2.5. The recent VM changes have left us with deadlocks that we didn't have before. Shouldn't that have gone into 2.5 not 2.4?
The VM performance in 2.4.x was a major regression from 2.2.x and is required to be fixed for 2.4.0 release. Riel did the bulk of this work, and it's now just dealing with a few remaining details on very low memory systems. His changes fixed a major problem, and structurally I believe his changes are completely sound and were justifiably included in 2.4.x.
So I think this was a bad example.
I'll say this much, if 2.5.x existed I'd be spending most of my time on a clean zero-copy TCP framework instead of walking over the net stack and sparc64 code verifying things every day, that is for sure. So yes, I am really thinking that it is forcing people to concentrate on fixing bugs, because at least it is doing so for me. I know that the faster 2.4.x happens the faster the "fun" 2.5.x stuff comes along.
And hey, guess what, as a result of this right now my "non-driver caused" core/ipv4/ipv6 networking bug list is pretty much empty right now. Only a few netfilter glitches appear to remain.
And hey, if you want the real proof, believe that even Alexey Kuznetsov has not worked on a new feature in nearly 2 months. :-))
Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |