Re: [PATCH 0/2] NET: Accurate packet scheduling for ATM/ADSL
From: Russell Stuart <hidden>
Date: 2006-07-30 23:07:35
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2006-07-02 · Re: [PATCH 0/2] NET: Accurate packet scheduling for ATM/ADSL · jamal <hidden>
- 2006-07-02 · Re: [PATCH 0/2] NET: Accurate packet scheduling for ATM/ADSL · Patrick McHardy <hidden>
- 2006-06-27 · Re: [PATCH 0/2] NET: Accurate packet scheduling for ATM/ADSL · jamal <hidden>
- 2006-06-26 · Re: [PATCH 0/2] NET: Accurate packet scheduling for ATM/ADSL · Patrick McHardy <hidden>
- 2006-06-24 · Re: [PATCH 0/2] NET: Accurate packet scheduling for ATM/ADSL · jamal <hidden>
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 14:56 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 16:50 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:quoted
Please excuse my silence, I was travelling and am still catching up with my mails.Sorry. Had I realised you were busy I would of waited.quoted
quoted
- As it stands, it doesn't help the qdiscs that use RTAB. So unless he proposes to remove RTAB entirely the ATM patch as it will still have to go in.Why? The length calculated by my STABs (or something similar) is used by _all_ qdiscs. Not only for transmission time calculation, but also for statistics and estimators.Oh. I didn't see where it is used for the time calculation in your patch. Did I miss something, or is that the unfinished bit? This is possibly my stumbling block. If you don't remove RTAB the ATM patch as stands will be needed. Your patch didn't remove RTAB, and you didn't say it was intended to, so I presume it wasn't going to.
It has gone quiet again. In my mind the one unresolved issue is whether Patrick intended to remove RTAB with his patch. If not, the ATM patch as it stands will have to go in. Patrick - it would be nice to hear from you.