Patrick McHardy wrote: > Corey Hickey wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I haven't been keeping up with sending ESFQ [ANNOUNCE] messages to this >> list, but I've still been working on the patch. If you're curious about >> recent changes, take a look at the home page, ChangeLog, and README: >> >> http://fatooh.org/esfq-2.6/ >> http://fatooh.org/esfq-2.6/current/ChangeLog >> http://fatooh.org/esfq-2.6/current/README >> >> Meanwhile, I'm interested in finally getting ESFQ included in the Linux >> kernel. Before I start sending patches and requesting maintainer review, >> however, there's one question I want to ask current or potential users >> of SFQ and ESFQ: >> >> Should ESFQ be merged into SFQ or remain as a separate qdisc? > > I've CCed netdev. I think merging parts of ESFQ (dynamic depth and > flow number) would make a lot of sense, but I'm intending to submit > an alternative to the ESFQ hashing scheme for 2.6.23: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg39156.html Nice. I wasn't aware of that. Your patch looks like it supersedes ESFQ's hashing, so, if it gets applied, that already removes a large chunk of the differences between SFQ and ESFQ. If I don't hear any opposition, then I'll keep an eye out for when your patch gets accepted (assuming it does) and then submit patch(es) porting the rest of ESFQ's features to SFQ. I just subscribed myself to netdev. > I have enough trust in ESFQ's stability that I don't think we need > a new qdisc for this and could merge it in SFQ (and the "uses only > 1 page" justification isn't true anymore anyway), but I also > wouldn't mind adding a new qdisc. Thanks for the trust; I'm sure that the patches will have to undergo some cleanup either way, considering my newbieness to kernel development. -Corey _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
