From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sch_netem: Remove classful functionality Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:56:42 +0000 Message-ID: <20081104095642.GA4498@ff.dom.local> References: <20081031132010.GA18895@ff.dom.local> <20081102.003700.198708146.davem@davemloft.net> <20081103082926.GA4698@ff.dom.local> <490EDE79.6070500@trash.net> <20081103090630.40b645d2@extreme> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Patrick McHardy , David Miller , herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187]:6228 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751561AbYKDJ4s (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 04:56:48 -0500 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d3so1197478nfc.21 for ; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:56:46 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081103090630.40b645d2@extreme> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 09:06:30AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:20:25 +0100 > Patrick McHardy wrote: > > > Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 12:37:00AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > >> From: Jarek Poplawski > > >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:20:10 +0000 > > >> > > >> Jarek, I applied this patch and your second one to net-next-2.6 > > >> > > >> But I did this only because I trust that you will address Stephen's > > >> feedback wrt. making existing netem functionality available in > > >> some way. > > >> > > >> Otherwise I'll have to revert these changes. > > > > > > Hmm... I thought there was kind of RFC for this, and it looked like > > > Patrick's idea won 100% of votes, but I'm not good in counting... > > > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=122469801712438&w=2 > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=122469674709761&w=2 > > > > > > Anyway, IMHO adding TBF etc. functionalities to tfifo doesn't make > > > much sense, and if they are really needed it's better to revert > > > these patches and chose one of the other ways of doing reorder > > > proposed in this earlier thread. > > > > Whats wrong with simply using TBF as parent qdisc of netem? > > It works but does something slightly different. > > netem inside TBF is like long delay network followed by choke on last hop > TBF inside netem was like choke on uplink followed by long delay network. David, this makes sense to me, so please revert these two patches. (Then, I think we're still at RFC stage.) Thanks. Jarek P.