Patrick McHardy wrote: > Corey Hickey wrote: >> Patrick McHardy wrote: >>>> 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 think it would be best if you would start posting patches > to add the missing features (without the hash changes) to SFQ, > if you're quick this may already go in during the 2.6.23 merge > window. My changes are mostly independant of yours, if there > are any clashes the one who goes last will just have to rediff > their patches :) > > Since you need to pass additional parameters to SFQ for your > changes, have a look at my rtnetlink compat attribute patch: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/64851 Ok, I'll work on it later. Thanks. -Corey _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
