Hi Adrian,

On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 07:50:36PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
quoted text
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 07:22:14PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >...
> > Thanks for your help, I really appreciate it. In fact, I've reviewed them
> > four, but two of them did not apply and the code looked somewhat different,
> > so I considered them irrelevant to 2.6.20. I didn't understand that they
> > were all related, so maybe I checked them in a wrong order.
> > 
> > I'll recheck all that in the right sequence and will merge them four, or
> > get back to you if something still puzzles me.
> 
> I discussed this issue with Ilpo just yesterday regarding 2.6.16, and 
> the result of our discussion was that I reverted it.

OK.

quoted text
> TCP being in some situations a bit more conservative than it should be 
> isn't a big issue and not worth backporting with a risk of introducing
> a regression.

I agree with this. The impression I got from the description of the two
patches I merged was that the problems they fix were quite annoying. But
maybe I should take that with a grain of salt.

quoted text
> I'd recommend you simply drop the two patches for 2.6.20.

That sounds OK to me. If 2.6.16 is fine without the patches, 2.6.20
certainly is, particularly if we keep in mind that it's a last version.

Thanks very much for your insights Adrian,
Willy

-
unsubscribe notice
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/