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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 21:00:22 EST