From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net] TCP_USER_TIMEOUT and tcp_keepalive should conform to RFC5482 Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 17:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20170809.175210.1390938117227894190.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20170809.173032.660035274684914457.davem@davemloft.net> <19024bb3-c06b-d004-5527-e4c54af66003@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: codesoldier1@gmail.com, hkchu@google.com, ycheng@google.com, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: rao.shoaib@oracle.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:48612 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752420AbdHJAwM (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Aug 2017 20:52:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <19024bb3-c06b-d004-5527-e4c54af66003@oracle.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Rao Shoaib Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:47:57 -0700 > > > 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. I want to hear more about what hkchu and ycheng have to say about this.