[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C86180A8C204554D8A3323D8F6B0A29F01AF6471@dhost002-46.dex002.intermedia.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:29:34 -0800
From: "Simon Barber" <simon@...icescape.com>
To: "Jiri Benc" <jbenc@...e.cz>, "Jan Kiszka" <jan.kiszka@....de>
Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Ivo Van Doorn" <ivdoorn@...il.com>,
<rt2400-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"Jouni Malinen" <jkm@...icescape.com>
Subject: RE: d80211: How does TX flow control work?
Scratches head -- this is from memory when I was thinking about this
problem a long time ago... I think we can return an error in the qdisc
destructor function - making sure legitimate interface removal is not
the cause of the qdisc deletion first of course.
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: Jiri Benc [mailto:jbenc@...e.cz]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 6:20 PM
To: Jan Kiszka
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; Ivo Van Doorn;
rt2400-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net; Jouni Malinen; Simon Barber
Subject: Re: d80211: How does TX flow control work?
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:18:48 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> The actual problem was meanwhile identified: shorewall happened to
> overwrite the queueing discipline of wmaster0 with pfifo_fast. I found
> the magic knob to tell shorewall to no longer do this (at least until
> I want to manage traffic control that way...), but I still wonder if
> it is an acceptable situation. Currently, the user can intentionally
> or accidentally screw up the stack this way.
Hm, we probably need a way to tell the kernel not to remove 802.11
qdisc. Jouni, Simon, is that possible or do we need to patch NET_SCHED
code?
Thanks,
Jiri
--
Jiri Benc
SUSE Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists