From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 5 May 2002 22:25:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 5 May 2002 22:25:45 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:57997 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 5 May 2002 22:25:45 -0400 Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 19:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20020505.191422.11638807.davem@redhat.com> To: dank@kegel.com Cc: khttpd-users@alt.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: khttpd rotten? From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <3CD5CE35.3EF2B62E@kegel.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Dan Kegel Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 17:28:37 -0700 If I didn't need it for a demo this week (don't ask), I wouldn't be messing with khttpd; I'd be switching to Tux. Seems like it's time to either fix khttpd or pull it from the kernel. We are going to pull it from the kernel. The only argument is whether to replace it with TUX or not. There is a lot of compelling evidence that suggests that reasonably close performance can be obtained in userspace. I guess the decision on TUX is not a prerequisite for pulling khttpd though.