From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST 1/2] NET: Accurate packet scheduling for ATM/ADSL (kernel) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:19:16 +0100 Message-ID: <45B0B744.7070800@trash.net> References: <1161041677.6247.1.camel@ras.pc.brisbane.lube> <1161090444.5555.13.camel@jzny2> <45378DE3.8080700@trash.net> <1161602527.5502.155.camel@ras.pc.stuart.local> <453CB801.4010902@trash.net> <1161640444.5502.214.camel@ras.pc.stuart.local> <453E3CFC.80007@trash.net> <1161733596.3829.91.camel@ras.pc.brisbane.lube> <456ED79E.2070707@trash.net> <1169075223.7560.15.camel@ras> <45AEF219.2060304@trash.net> <1169100970.21535.18.camel@ras> <45AF5C02.1010005@trash.net> <1169176280.1118.8.camel@ras> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:60004 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965094AbXASMTR (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:19:17 -0500 To: Russell Stuart In-Reply-To: <1169176280.1118.8.camel@ras> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Russell Stuart wrote: > On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 12:37 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>>Or are you proposing tc behave differently on different >>>kernel versions. (I have no problem with that, but >>>isn't it officially frowned upon?) >> >>Yes. There is no way you can make this work on old kernels, >>nobody expects that. The important part is that everything >>continues to work as before and that both old and new iproute >>binaries work properly on both old and new kernels (new >>iproute on old kernels without STABs obviously). > > > I thought that some degree of compatibility was > expected. At the very least the newest version > of "tc" must work on _any_ kernel as least as > well as the version it replaces did. > > I also though newer kernels should work older > version of iproute2, albeit without the features > added in the newer versions. > > Are you saying this is not so? No, thats exactly what I'm saying.