From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: questions on NAPI processing latency and dropped network packets Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:58:36 +0100 Message-ID: <20080116065836.GA1638@ff.dom.local> References: <20080115202905.GA2680@ami.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: cfriesen@nortel.com, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]:12299 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753074AbYAPGwQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:52:16 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so173986ugc.16 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:52:12 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 11:17:08AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: ... > Well people are always going to operate on this model for commercial > reasons. FWIW I used to work for a company that stuck to a specific > version of the Linux kernel, and I suppose I still do even now :) > > But the important thing is that if you're going to do that, then the > cost that comes with it should be borne by the company and not the > community. Sure. But the most sad thing is there seems to be not so much savings in this (unless a company isn't sure of its near future). Trying to upgrade and test current products with current kernels, even if not necessary, should be always useful and make developing of new products faster and better fit (and of course, BTW, make the kernel better on time). Regards, Jarek P.