From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] tc/netem: loss gemodel options fixes Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 10:09:17 +0200 Message-ID: References: <29682.1399754098@localhost.localdomain> <11467.1400183199@localhost.localdomain> <20140804123709.502bbe1d@haswell.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Jay Vosburgh , netdev , netem@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mail-vc0-f177.google.com ([209.85.220.177]:47963 "EHLO mail-vc0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932516AbaHEIJS (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2014 04:09:18 -0400 Received: by mail-vc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id hy4so858761vcb.8 for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 01:09:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140804123709.502bbe1d@haswell.linuxnetplumber.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 4 August 2014 21:37, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > I went ahead and applied these. They make sense and got no response. Wait Stephen, Jay do you compared your changes with the expected results? I mean did you run tests that the Markov chain model is _now_ working correctly (in all states)? The setup will be easy: send 10000 packets, capture the packets and 'wc -l tcpdump -r trace.pcap' and compare to the expected number of packets for a given markov state setup. Enough bugs here where the should be no bugs at all. Some simple tests should be enough to get rid of them. Hagen