On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:58:24 -0800 (PST) David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:That doesn't answer my question. See, first we need to work out whether we have a problem. If we do this, then we can then have a think about what to do about it. I tried to convince the 2006 KS attendees that we have a problem and I resoundingly failed. People seemed to think that we're doing OK. But it appears that data such as this contradicts that belief. This is not a minor matter. If the kernel _is_ slowly deteriorating then this won't become readily apparent until it has been happening for a number of years. By that stage there will be so much work to do to get us back to an acceptable level that it will take a huge effort. And it will take a long time after that for the kerel to get its reputation back. So it is important that we catch deterioration *early* if it is happening. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 014/196] kobject: remove incorrect comment in kobject_rename |
| Vladislav Bolkhovitin | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Stephen Rothwell | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Radu Rendec | htb parallelism on multi-core platforms |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
