|
Since I've hardcoded FIN_WAIT to 10*HZ I didn't catch this.
If you think this is safe, which I strongly suspect it is,
Maybe it's safe for us, because we work in the high-speed network
business, for others it might break stuff in subtle ways I cannot think
of right now, though :).
can you send a patch, for 2.6 (or 2.4 I can rediff it if you want,
but it won't go into that tree) that changes this. I know its
trivial but lets practice sign-off procedure. Once we finally
I agree with this procedure, and I shall submit a patch. Unfortunately
I'm not given the time to do this right now, so this will have to wait.
OTOH I believe that we should make those read-only TCP state timeout
tunables in proc-fs read-write. I believe this would make a lot more
sense, wouldn't it? In fact you've mentioned this before as well.
work out a solution to the templates problem I'll send some patches
upstream, and this can go in the batch.
I see if I can cook up something, it's not that so many people care
about it anyway, nor is it broken; just suboptimal.
Cheers,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
addr://Kasinostrasse 30, CH-5001 Aarau tel://++41 62 823 9355
http://www.terreactive.com fax://++41 62 823 9356
-------------------------------------------------------------
terreActive AG Wir sichern Ihren Erfolg
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
