Em Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 09:33:11PM +0200, Tomasz Grobelny escreveu: > Dnia Wednesday 23 of April 2008, David Miller napisał: > > From: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:41:52 +0100 > > > > > | If we iron this out we could finally return to the main subject of this > > > | thread. That is Patch v2 by me and Gerrit... > > > | -- > > > > > > Fully agree - we just need to decide whether or not to use skb->priority. > > > > > > Below is as far as I got in integrating your patch last week, it shows > > > only the major changes. The following bits have been updated: > > > > > > * skb->priority now cleared before passing the skb onto layer 3; > > > * order of statements in prio_push() reversed (first dropping worst > > > skb and then pushing the new skb - this is better when e.g. > > > tx_qlen=1); > > > * added general parsing routine for cmsg(3) socket control messages > > > and defined one for the SOL_DCCP socket level; thanks to advice > > > by Dave Miller > > > > If this usage of skb->priority is going to override the > > IP_TOS socket option setting, I don't think it's a good > > idea. > > > > Right now every packet output goes through ip_output.c > > which sets skb->priority to sk->sk_priority, which is set > > by the user via the IP_TOS socket option in ip_sockglue.c > > > But I guess this assignment happens a bit later (that is after outgoing packet > leaves DCCP code). Consequently using skb->priority should not harm as it > will be overwritten. Or did I miss something? I haven't read all the patches, but I guess Tomasz is on the safe side as the intended skb->priority usage is limited to DCCP, when IP is handed the skb it can do as it pleases with skb->priority. - Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
