Re: [PATCH 2.4] Wireless Extension v17 (resend)

[Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>]

On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:45:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
> 
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > 
> > > 	There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
> > > to upgrade, I guess...
> > 
> > Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully, 
> 
> When a CPU-hungry task freezes another one for more than 13 seconds, I cannot
> agree with your last statement, and that's why I still don't upgrade. I have
> already posted examples of worst case scenarios, but I now start to have a
> more meaningful example to show so that people working on the scheduler may
> have something clearer to work with. I also did not have time to retest -ck
> or staircase recently, but I will do for completeness.

v2.6 scheduler regressions cannot be tolerated. 

Please prepare more detailed data about your problem - I'm sure Ingo and friends
will appreciate it.

> > handles highmem decently, LSM/SELinux, etc, etc...
> > 
> > IMO everyone should upgrade whenever appropriate. 
> 
> I still know about a tens of 2.2 still running around at customers ;-)
> However, if it had not been for lazyness, they should have upgraded. 

:)