Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add qdisc->ops->peek() support.

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 04:12:03PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> ...
>> Some general thoughts ...
>>
>> We've never had any systematic checks for useful and non-useful
>> combination of qdiscs, which is causing a lot of these complications.
>> Think of all the multiq work that was required to make it work
>> properly with non-work-conserving qdiscs - while at the same time,
>> using a non-work-conserving qdisc (which require a global view)
>> defeats basically all of the benefits.
>>
>> So it would be really useful to come up with a systematic definition
>> of valid combinations instead of trying handling lots of purely
>> theoretical case that don't make sense. One more example - all the
>> qdiscs implement ->drop(), yet its only needed by CBQ and it doesn't
>> make any sense at all to use lets say HFSC as child of CBQ.
>>
>> About this specific case - yes, it would break compatibility for
>> users using f.i. TBF as child of netem. But if you look at the
>> netem_enqueue() function, it in fact assumes that the inner qdisc
>> is a tfifo, so we'd be breaking an already broken case. We can
>> of course be nice and warn about it for a few releases, but I believe
>> there is some real potential for simplification that makes it
>> worth it.
> 
> I'm not sure this is all right: at least until there is not too much
> problems with some code (like with requeuing).  We probably should try
> before this official ways like feature-removal-schedule.txt, and/or
> maybe some CONFIG_XXX_DEPRECATED things. But I don't persist with this.

Sure. Nobody reads feature-removal-schedule.txt though, so we should
also have a runtime warning :)

> BTW, I'm not sure if I'm expected to redo any patches in this thread.
> (Probably some things like this teql_peek() could be removed with
> ->requeue() killing.)

Just do the changes you think are right, I'm not expecting you to
do anything I suggested :)