On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 06:19:25PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:49:17PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > > Nacked-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I think we just discussed this a day ago? It is the same problem - > > while we all agree the values should follow the RFC, users have had > > the option to set any values forever (even non-RFC compliant ones). > > This change risks breaking user-space. > > OK, I misunderstood your reply in last mail. I thought you only object to > disabling no meaning values(e.g. set timer to 0, which not is forbid by the > RFC). I don't know you also reject to follow a *MUST* rule defined in the RFC. I know you denied the patch due to user-space compatibility. Forgive me if my last reply sound a little aggressive. Thanks Hangbin
