From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rao Shoaib Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net] TCP_USER_TIMEOUT and tcp_keepalive should conform to RFC5482 Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:47:57 -0700 Message-ID: <19024bb3-c06b-d004-5527-e4c54af66003@oracle.com> References: <20170809.173032.660035274684914457.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hkchu@google.com, ycheng@google.com, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller , codesoldier1@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:46341 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752098AbdHJAsh (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Aug 2017 20:48:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170809.173032.660035274684914457.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/09/2017 05:30 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Joe Smith > 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. Shoaib