From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell Stuart Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST 1/2] NET: Accurate packet scheduling for ATM/ADSL (kernel) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:11:19 +1000 Message-ID: <1169176280.1118.8.camel@ras> References: <1161041677.6247.1.camel@ras.pc.brisbane.lube> <1161090444.5555.13.camel@jzny2> <45378DE3.8080700@trash.net> <1161602527.5502.155.camel@ras.pc.stuart.local> <453CB801.4010902@trash.net> <1161640444.5502.214.camel@ras.pc.stuart.local> <453E3CFC.80007@trash.net> <1161733596.3829.91.camel@ras.pc.brisbane.lube> <456ED79E.2070707@trash.net> <1169075223.7560.15.camel@ras> <45AEF219.2060304@trash.net> <1169100970.21535.18.camel@ras> <45AF5C02.1010005@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller Return-path: Received: from 58.105.229.78.optusnet.com.au ([58.105.229.78]:34708 "EHLO adsl-kenny.stuart.id.au" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964786AbXASDLj (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:11:39 -0500 To: Patrick McHardy In-Reply-To: <45AF5C02.1010005@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 12:37 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > Or are you proposing tc behave differently on different > > kernel versions. (I have no problem with that, but > > isn't it officially frowned upon?) > > Yes. There is no way you can make this work on old kernels, > nobody expects that. The important part is that everything > continues to work as before and that both old and new iproute > binaries work properly on both old and new kernels (new > iproute on old kernels without STABs obviously). I thought that some degree of compatibility was expected. At the very least the newest version of "tc" must work on _any_ kernel as least as well as the version it replaces did. I also though newer kernels should work older version of iproute2, albeit without the features added in the newer versions. Are you saying this is not so?