From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 5 May 2002 22:36:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 5 May 2002 22:36:51 -0400 Received: from relay1.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]:18186 "HELO relay.pair.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 5 May 2002 22:36:49 -0400 X-pair-Authenticated: 24.126.75.99 Message-ID: <3CD5ECEE.E6C0B894@kegel.com> Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 19:39:42 -0700 From: Dan Kegel Reply-To: dank@kegel.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" CC: khttpd-users@alt.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: khttpd rotten? In-Reply-To: <3CD5CE35.3EF2B62E@kegel.com> <20020505.191422.11638807.davem@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "David S. Miller" wrote: > > From: Dan Kegel > Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 17:28:37 -0700 > > If I didn't need it for a demo this week (don't ask), I > wouldn't be messing with khttpd; I'd be switching to Tux. > > Seems like it's time to either fix khttpd or pull it from the kernel. > > We are going to pull it from the kernel. > > The only argument is whether to replace it with TUX or not. > There is a lot of compelling evidence that suggests that > reasonably close performance can be obtained in userspace. > > I guess the decision on TUX is not a prerequisite for pulling > khttpd though. Right. If khttpd had been pulled from 2.4.17, I would have had weeks of warning that khttpd is unstable; instead, I learned only when someone started doing his own stress testing, and I have little time to fix it. I say pull it from 2.4.19-pre9. Marcello, put it out of its misery asap, please... it'd time for khttpd to become a standalone patch again. - Dan