netdev - Re: [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080502205654.GB5116@gerrit.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date:	Fri, 2 May 2008 21:56:54 +0100
From:	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
To:	Tomasz Grobelny <tomasz@...belny.oswiecenia.net>
Cc:	dccp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked
	version of Tomasz's patch set

| > | c) allow qpolicy to use each cmsg header as different parameter. So that
| > (...)
| > I think (c) is best, here is what I'd support.
| > (...)
| Seems we are getting closer in our views, see the just sent patch.
| 
That would be good - what I would like to do is to replace the 12 or so
patches in git://eden-feed.erg.abdn.ac.uk/dccp_exp [qpolicy subtree]
with a single patch and then put it into the test tree.

Will answer regarding the other patch separately and then resubmit the 
combined patch to the list - if you are ok with it, you can add your
signed-off or point out where you disagree. It remains your patch.

What I'd still like to do is some testing on different architectures.

| > I.e. to answer the question, I think it is best to implement "timeout"
| > first, solve the problems it brings up; when that is done,
| > "priority+timeout" will be easy to do - it could be constructed just out of
| > the existing functions defined for "priority" and "timeout".
| >
| > In that manner, other policies can be modularly constructed - for instance
| > by combining "timeout" with a different form of the "priority" policy.
| >
| I'm not entirely sure if such modular constructions would be possible. I 
| prefer to think of "timeout policy" and "prio policy" as a special cases 
| of "timeout+prio policy" with respectively DCCP_SCM_PRIORITY and 
| DCCP_SCM_TIMEOUT not supplied (and thus set to their default values: 0 and 
| INFINITY).
| -- 
It depends on the way one looks at it. Your view is top-down, mine is
bottom-up, both can work. Agree with the parameters.

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.

--
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