From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [RFC]: net-sched 00/05: dynamically sized class hashes Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:13:11 +0200 Message-ID: <486B54B7.2060100@trash.net> References: <20080701143410.26309.45560.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20080701.195050.177373433.davem@davemloft.net> <486B262F.2040108@cdi.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Martin Devera Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:65204 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752993AbYGBKNN (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jul 2008 06:13:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <486B262F.2040108@cdi.cz> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Martin Devera wrote: > 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 ? Yes, it looks like that would work. I'll give it a try :)