From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sch_netem: Remove classful functionality Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:20:25 +0100 Message-ID: <490EDE79.6070500@trash.net> References: <20081031132010.GA18895@ff.dom.local> <20081102.003700.198708146.davem@davemloft.net> <20081103082926.GA4698@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , shemminger@vyatta.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:39954 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755105AbYKCLUc (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 06:20:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081103082926.GA4698@ff.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 12:37:00AM -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: Jarek Poplawski >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:20:10 +0000 >> >> Jarek, I applied this patch and your second one to net-next-2.6 >> >> But I did this only because I trust that you will address Stephen's >> feedback wrt. making existing netem functionality available in >> some way. >> >> Otherwise I'll have to revert these changes. > > Hmm... I thought there was kind of RFC for this, and it looked like > Patrick's idea won 100% of votes, but I'm not good in counting... > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=122469801712438&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=122469674709761&w=2 > > Anyway, IMHO adding TBF etc. functionalities to tfifo doesn't make > much sense, and if they are really needed it's better to revert > these patches and chose one of the other ways of doing reorder > proposed in this earlier thread. Whats wrong with simply using TBF as parent qdisc of netem?