From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: Question about HFSC atm+man patches Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:48:43 +0100 Message-ID: <492E7B0B.8000601@trash.net> References: <49292F54.4020803@ziu.info> <4929632F.3050200@trash.net> <492AB29A.3010601@ziu.info> <492AB60A.9050606@trash.net> <492DD399.4040801@ziu.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linux Netdev List To: Michal Soltys Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:47233 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756867AbYK0Ksy (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:48:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <492DD399.4040801@ziu.info> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Michal Soltys wrote: > One question regarding size tables: > > Should I assume that subsequent qdiscs attached to HFSC leaves will not > use [different] size tables ? > > This is currently the case, but from the perspective of a generic > solution - if some inner qdisc changes pkt_len stored in cb area during > qdisc_enqueue, then HFSC might get wrong size during peek operation. > > As leaves will usually have "simple" work-conserving qdiscs attached, > this is probably not an issue, but ... Using different size tables for inner qdiscs is supposed to work. What is the "wrong size"? ->peek() should return a packet with the size the same as ->dequeue() would, which I think it does.