From: Rao Shoaib <rao.sho...@oracle.com> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:47:57 -0700
> > > On 08/09/2017 05:30 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Joe Smith <codesoldi...@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.
