From: John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:11:07 -0400
> I don't know if this qualifies as an unconditional bug. The commit > above was actually a bugfix so that the limits were not higher than > total memory on some systems, but had the side effect that it made them > even smaller on your particular configuration. Also, having initial > sysctl values that are conservatively small probably doesn't qualify as > a bug (for patching stable trees). You might ask the -stable > maintainers if they have a different opinion. > > For most people, 2.6.19 and 2.6.20 work fine. For those who really care > about the tcp_mem values (are using a substantial fraction of physical > memory for TCP connections), the best bet is to set the tcp_mem sysctl > values in the startup scripts, or use the new initialization function in > 2.6.21. What's most important is determining if that tcp_mem[] patch actually fixes his problem, so it is his responsibility to see whether this is the case. If it does fix the problem, I'm happy to submit the backport to -stable. But until such tests are made, it's just speculation whether the patch fixes the problem or not, and therefore there is zero justification to submit it to -stable. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
