From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Duyck Subject: Re: [UPDATED] [NET-NEXT PATCH 1/2] pkt_sched: Add multiqueue scheduler support Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:53:02 -0700 Message-ID: <48BDA7AE.3080103@intel.com> References: <20080901210516.GA5931@ami.dom.local> <1220309354.14337.34.camel@ahduyck-laptop> <20080902055411.GA4180@ff.dom.local> <20080902075241.GB4180@ff.dom.local> <80769D7B14936844A23C0C43D9FBCF0F1525E3CA@orsmsx501.amr.corp.intel.com> <20080902200953.GA2544@ami.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexander Duyck , "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" , "jeff@garzik.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:28090 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751567AbYIBUxG (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2008 16:53:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080902200953.GA2544@ami.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jarek Poplawski wrote: > Right. But since this doesn't cause this additional blocking I'm not > sure there is a reason to forbid this. IMHO documenting this could be > enough, and letting to do this could be useful even for testing. But, > of course, you are the author, so I don't persist with this. > > Thanks, > Jarek P. You are correct in that it doesn't cause any additional blocking, but it does break the way that the prio qdisc is supposed to work. I figure it is best to keep all the qdiscs behaving the way they are supposed to without my qdisc changing their behavior by acting as a leaf. Thanks for all the useful input. Alex