From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Fink Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] netem: rate-latency extension Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:06:50 -0500 Message-ID: <20111124200650.c1f609ef.billfink@mindspring.com> References: <1322156378-23257-1-git-send-email-hagen@jauu.net> <1322172898.2872.7.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20111124223118.GH2673@hell> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Dumazet , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Hemminger To: Hagen Paul Pfeifer Return-path: Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.66]:45947 "EHLO elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752140Ab1KYBQ1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:16:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20111124223118.GH2673@hell> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 24 Nov 2011, Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote: > * Eric Dumazet | 2011-11-24 23:14:58 [+0100]: > > >Only point is why you chose ratelatency instead of rate ? > > > Not sure why, it was called rate in v1, then somebody said ratelatency and I > found it more stating. So in v2 it become ratelatency. I have no strong > opinion here - should I generate v3? >>From the user perspective, I also find rate much more natural. No need to add further to tc obscurity. I would ask for an update to the netem man page, but I guess there isn't a netem man page. :-( -Bill