[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OFF2224CCE.8045DF8B-ON6525731F.00287359-6525731F.0028A9BC@in.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:54:08 +0530
From: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, gaagaan@...il.com,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org, hadi@...erus.ca,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, jagana@...ibm.com, jeff@...zik.org,
johnpol@....mipt.ru, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
kumarkr@...ux.ibm.com, mcarlson@...adcom.com, mchan@...adcom.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com,
rdreier@...co.com, rick.jones2@...com, Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se,
sri@...ibm.com, tgraf@...g.ch, xma@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] sch_generic.c changes.
Krishna Kumar2/India/IBM wrote on 07/21/2007 12:26:23 PM:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> wrote on 07/20/2007 11:46:36 PM:
>
> > The check for tx_queue_len is wrong though,
> > its only a default which can be overriden and some qdiscs don't
> > care for it at all.
> I think it should not matter whether qdiscs use this or not, or even if
it
> is modified (unless it is made zero in which case this breaks). The
> intention behind this check is to make sure that not more than
tx_queue_len
> skbs are in all queues put together (q->qdisc + dev->skb_blist),
otherwise
> the blist can become too large and breaks the idea of tx_queue_len. Is
that
> a good justification ?
Also, if tx_queue_len is set to zero, I think my code will not execute and
the existing code will break at rc = q->enqueue() (for sched's checking
queue
limits).
-
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