From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [patch] d80211: use pfifo_qdisc_ops rather than d80211-specific qdisc Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:49:41 +0200 Message-ID: <45401435.3080407@trash.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Kimdon , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , Jiri Benc Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:7412 "EHLO stinky.trash.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965271AbWJZBuI (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:50:08 -0400 To: Simon Barber In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Simon Barber wrote: > Pfifo_fast does not make sense because the 802.11 qdisc already > categorizes the frames based on DSCP. The better thing would be to > extract the pfifo qdisc so that it does not require NET_SCHED, but this > is more work. It wouldn't really hurt though since all frames queued to a band already have the same priority, so pfifo_fast behaves similar to fifo. BTW, is there a specific reason for using DSCP? Normally Linux uses rt_tos2priority and prio2band for determining a priority for IP packets. I don't want to argue that one is better than the other, but there is some value in keeping things consistent ..