Re: [PATCH v1 net] TCP_USER_TIMEOUT and tcp_keepalive should conform to RFC5482

From: Rao Shoaib <redacted>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:47:57 -0700

On 08/09/2017 05:30 PM, David Miller wrote:

quoted

From: Joe Smith <redacted>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:20:32 -0700

quoted

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.