From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] qos: Limit a filter's priority to a 16 bit value Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 22:35:32 -0400 Message-ID: <1241231732.7162.13.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> References: <273D38FBE7C6FE46A1689FCD014A0B8B495C016A@azsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <1241229126.7162.5.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> <273D38FBE7C6FE46A1689FCD014A0B8B495C01C0@azsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <20090501.191854.218400455.davem@davemloft.net> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: robert.w.love@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f196.google.com ([209.85.221.196]:39474 "EHLO mail-qy0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750985AbZEBCf6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2009 22:35:58 -0400 Received: by qyk34 with SMTP id 34so3919885qyk.33 for ; Fri, 01 May 2009 19:35:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090501.191854.218400455.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 19:10 -0700, Love, Robert W wrote: > I don't want our script to yank out the > multiq qdisc just because FCoE traffic has stopped. The FCoE > script doesn't know if the user has other filters applied for > that interface/qdisc. The script should just remove its > filters and not disrupt anything else on the chain. True - but if you specify the prio on add/del you should be fine though. I looked at about 15-20 scripts and i noticed i always specified the priority; i suspect most people do thats why noone bumped into this over the years. On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 19:18 -0700, David Miller wrote: > So could I just get that one-liner fix patch from somebody? Robert, would you do the honors of submitting the patch since you did all the hardwork? > Thanks :-) > > Meanwhile, on the issue of how this value is stored, perhaps someone > intended to support "classful" filter priorities, just as we support > classful qdiscs. Or perhaps someone had the idea to store the > protocol in there as well, who knows :-) I cant remember the reason. Alexey probably would - but i think the important point is it is consistent everywhere. cheers, jamal