From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758990AbZA2SK1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:10:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753279AbZA2SKR (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:10:17 -0500 Received: from anguilla.debian.or.at ([86.59.21.37]:39509 "EHLO anguilla.debian.or.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752441AbZA2SKQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:10:16 -0500 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:10:14 +0100 From: Peter Palfrader To: Andrew Morton Cc: Adam Tkac , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, team@security.debian.org, libpam-modules@packages.debian.org, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.28, rlimits, performance and debian etch Message-ID: <20090129181014.GO2469@anguilla.noreply.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Morton , Adam Tkac , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, team@security.debian.org, libpam-modules@packages.debian.org, stable@kernel.org References: <20090121115219.GA2754@anguilla.noreply.org> <20090127151703.c356c5db.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090129121900.GA2827@evileye.atkac.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20090129100509.6969970f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090129100509.6969970f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> X-PGP: 1024D/94C09C7F 5B00 C96D 5D54 AEE1 206B AF84 DE7A AF6E 94C0 9C7F X-Request-PGP: http://www.palfrader.org/keys/94C09C7F.asc X-Accept-Language: de, en User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > Sure, debian might well be wrong. But the bottom line is that the > kernel changed, and people's machines broke. > > If the kernel change was really really important then we might just > grit our teeth and live with the breakage. But this change _wasn't_ a > terribly important one. So I think we should back it out while we find > another way of implementing it which does not break currently deployed > installations. FWIWs, if Debian stable (4.0) is really the only place that breaks with this then re-introducing it in a couple of months when the new version of Debian (5.0) has been out for a while might well be an option. Peter -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `- http://www.debian.org/