Jarek Poplawski wrote:

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:51:29PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

sch_netem is just a black box, like any other packet scheduler node in
the tree, and so it can internally do the reordering with a self managed
packet list or similar.  All of this can be hidden inside of it's ->dequeue()
with some pkt_sch watchdog timer that fires to prevent stale packets sitting
in the reorder queue forever.

Anyways, just and idea and RFC, just like this patch ;-)

The problem is that jamal talked me into having netem as a classful qdisc,
instead of doing its own rate control.  People like to do use TBF as inner qdisc,
and do reordering.

If it's only this kind of usage we could export tfifo and let use this
as a TBF's (etc.) leaf. Of course, this would require changes in those
people scripts.

In that case we might as well teach them to use TBF as *parent*
of netem (and I'd vote to do that and kill requeue).

But we can argue about this forever without any progress. The
question is simple - should we enforce a reasonable qdisc structure
and kill ->requeue or keep it around forever. Keep in mind that there
is no loss of functionality by using TBF as parent and that we
can do this gradually so users have a chance to fix their scripts,
should anyone really use TBF as inner qdisc.