[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071128.161905.109761213.takano@axe-inc.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:19:05 +0900 (JST)
From: Ryousei Takano <takano-ryousei@...t.go.jp>
To: kaber@...sh.net
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
dada1@...mosbay.com, t.kudoh@...t.go.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] NET_SCHED: PSPacer qdisc module
Hi Patrick,
> >>> +struct tc_psp_qopt
> >>> +{
> >>> + __u32 defcls;
> >>> + __u32 rate;
> >>> +};
> >>
> >> What unit is rate measured in?
> >>
> > 'rate' is the transmission rate in bytes per sec.
>
>
> So wouldn't it make sense to use u64 then for 10GBit networks?
>
I decided to use u32 after tc_ratespec.rate is u32.
u32 is large enough for 10Gbit networks, but small for 40Gbit.
I will use u64, because code becomes simple and consistent.
> >>> + skb_put(skb, size);
> >> This is usually done before putting data in the packet.
> >>
> > Therefore, skb_put() is needed.
>
>
> I meant this is usually done before writing to the packet data,
> so you should move it up a few lines.
>
I am silly:-) I understood. Thanks.
> >>> + while (!list_empty(&q->root))
> >>> + psp_destroy_class(sch, list_entry(q->root.next,
> >>> + struct psp_class, sibling));
> >> list_for_each_entry_safe.
> >>
> > I think it works well. Should I need to use list_for_each_entry_safe?
>
>
> I don't doubt that it works, but list_for_each_entry_safe is
> the proper interface for this.
>
I will fix it. Thanks.
Best regards,
Ryousei Takano
-
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