Re: [PATCH v1 net] TCP_USER_TIMEOUT and tcp_keepalive should conform to RFC5482

[David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>]

From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:47:57 -0700

> 
> 
> On 08/09/2017 05:30 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Joe Smith <codesoldier1@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:20:32 -0700
>>
>>> Making Linux conform to standards and behavior that is logical seems
>>> like a good enough reason.
>> That's an awesome attitude to have when we're implementing something
>> new and don't have the facility already.
>>
>> But when we have something already the only important consideration is
>> not breaking existing apps which rely on that behavior.
>>
>> That is much, much, more important than standards compliance.
>>
>> If users are confused, just fix the documentation.
> David,
> 
> If it was just confusion than sure fixing the documentation is
> fine. What if the logic is incorrect, does not conform to the standard
> that is says it is implementing and easy to fix with little or no risk
> of breakage.
> 
> The proposed patch changes a feature that no one uses. It also imposes
> the relation ship between keepalive and timeout values that is
> required by the RFC and make sense.
> 
> You are the final authority, if you say we should just fix the
> documentation than that is fine.

I want to hear more about what hkchu and ycheng have to say about
this.