Re: [PATCH 0/2] NET: Accurate packet scheduling for ATM/ADSL
From: Russell Stuart <hidden>
Date: 2006-06-27 06:20:56
From: Russell Stuart <hidden>
Date: 2006-06-27 06:20:56
On 26/06/2006 9:10 PM, Patrick McHardy wrote:
quoted
5. We still did have to modify the kernel for ATM. That was because of its rather unusual characteristics. However, it you look at the size of modifications made to the kernel verses the size made to the user space tool, (37 lines versus 303 lines,) the bulk of the work was does in user space.I'm sorry, but arguing that a limited special case solution is better because it needs slightly less code is just not reasonable.
Without seeing your actual proposal it is difficult to judge whether this is a reasonable trade-off or not. Hopefully we will see your code soon. Do you have any idea when?