[PATCH 0/9]: Killing qdisc->ops->requeue().

[PATCH 0/9]: Killing qdisc->ops->requeue().

[David Miller]

This implements what I tried to describe in previous
emails.

It gets rid of qdisc->ops->requeue() because logically it
is completely superfluous.  All it does is allow the
next level to declare to the lower qdisc "send this next
no matter what" and we can trivially do that with a simple
list.

Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Re: [PATCH 0/9]: Killing qdisc->ops->requeue().

[Jarek Poplawski]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 01:36:40AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> 
> This implements what I tried to describe in previous
> emails.
> 
> It gets rid of qdisc->ops->requeue() because logically it
> is completely superfluous.  All it does is allow the
> next level to declare to the lower qdisc "send this next
> no matter what" and we can trivially do that with a simple
> list.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

David, I hope these patches are right, anyway I think I'll be able
to look at them later, after I figure out these new locking changes.
Of course, you don't need to wait for me.

But, I guess, much more important should be Patrick's opinion on
this, so I added him to CC. 

Thanks,
Jarek P.

Re: [PATCH 0/9]: Killing qdisc->ops->requeue().

[David Miller]

From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:21:38 +0000

> David, I hope these patches are right, anyway I think I'll be able
> to look at them later, after I figure out these new locking changes.
> Of course, you don't need to wait for me.

Ok, but just FYI this was meant more of a "here is what
I was trying to say" rather than a "I'm going to
apply these patches now" type of patch submission :-)