From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Devera Subject: Re: [RFC]: net-sched 00/05: dynamically sized class hashes Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:54:39 +0200 Message-ID: <486B262F.2040108@cdi.cz> References: <20080701143410.26309.45560.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20080701.195050.177373433.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: kaber@trash.net Return-path: Received: from smtp.wifcom.cz ([89.185.251.8]:43587 "EHLO wifcom.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755795AbYGBGy6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jul 2008 02:54:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080701.195050.177373433.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: Patrick McHardy > Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:34:11 +0200 (MEST) > >> Only RFC at this point because they haven't been tested thoroughly yet >> and depend on the filter destruction fixes I sent this morning, but any >> review (especially of 4/5, the htb_delete changes) is welcome. > > These patches look fine to me. > > I haven't investigated the correctness of the details of patch > 4 yet, sorry :-) Maybe someone else will be able to. > It seems ok to me. I even can't remember why to destroy in class order :-) Interestingly, once you do this patch then children/siblings list-heads are used only in htb_parent_last_child and to detect empty class. Thus we could remove children/siblings lists altogether ane keep only children counter. I can't believe it is so simple, what do you think, Patrick ? Martin