From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPROUTE: Modify tc for new PRIO multiqueue behavior Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 14:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20070504.140006.99457686.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20070504130110.0694aee6@freekitty> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shemminger@linux-foundation.org, hadi@cyberus.ca, kaber@trash.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, cramerj@intel.com, auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com, christopher.leech@intel.com To: peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:32906 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S376155AbXEDVAE (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 17:00:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 13:43:43 -0700 > And if someone can explain to me why 2 months of review and scrutiny > of these patches has shifted in another direction, I'd really like > to understand that. One reason is that you're sort of making it clear that this feature is for something else. Something that you can't disclose at this time, which of course in and of itself is perfectly fine. However, if you can't talk about the real motivation for this feature, and it really doesn't stand %100 on it's own as-is without that information (I don't think it does), trying to get this work in now using a different premise it's a little bit dishonest. Don't you think? It's also a bit unreasonable to ask the community to buy into a technology, the real purpose of which you cannot even talk about. I'm sure everyone is happy to reconsider this work when the real motivation can be talked about in the open. Thanks.