From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: tcp congestion policy selection link order fragile Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:11:51 +0900 Message-ID: <20060917221151.7d343f3f@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060916221948.GA12421@outpost.ds9a.nl> <20060917083214.45b5f61f@localhost.localdomain> <20060917101101.GA30461@outpost.ds9a.nl> <20060917205351.4f691c4e@localhost.localdomain> <20060917122153.GA2932@outpost.ds9a.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:55507 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932426AbWIQNMY (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 09:12:24 -0400 To: bert hubert In-Reply-To: <20060917122153.GA2932@outpost.ds9a.nl> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:21:53 +0200 bert hubert wrote: > On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 08:53:51PM +0900, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > Depending on load order is not good, and not a safe way to configure. > > I agree fully. > > > If you want a particular value set it with sysctl! > > Operators, distributors and even people who've been doing kernel stuff for > more than a decade expect to be able to compile in (experimental) policies, > and not have a *random* one of them enabled by default! Any body who builds in random stuff without thinking is being foolish. But, if you can think of a better configuration method that isn't too grotty, then go for it.