Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Corey Hickey wrote:
>> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>>> Should ESFQ be merged into SFQ or remain as a separate qdisc?
>>>>
>>> I've CCed netdev. I think merging parts of ESFQ (dynamic depth and
>>> flow number) would make a lot of sense, but I'm intending to submit
>>> an alternative to the ESFQ hashing scheme for 2.6.23:
>>>
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg39156.html
>>>
>> Nice. I wasn't aware of that. Your patch looks like it supersedes ESFQ's
>> hashing, so, if it gets applied, that already removes a large chunk of
>> the differences between SFQ and ESFQ.
>>
>> If I don't hear any opposition, then I'll keep an eye out for when your
>> patch gets accepted (assuming it does) and then submit patch(es) porting
>> the rest of ESFQ's features to SFQ.
>>
>
> I think it would be best if you would start posting patches
> to add the missing features (without the hash changes) to SFQ,
> if you're quick this may already go in during the 2.6.23 merge
> window. My changes are mostly independant of yours, if there
> are any clashes the one who goes last will just have to rediff
> their patches :)
>
> Since you need to pass additional parameters to SFQ for your
> changes, have a look at my rtnetlink compat attribute patch:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/64851
Ok, I'll work on it later. Thanks.
-Corey
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
|