netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/14]: Killing qdisc->ops->requeue().

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

Message-ID: <20081015082726.GA5140@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:27:26 +0000
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14]: Killing qdisc->ops->requeue().

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:44:13PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
...
> I think we really need a peek operation since most qdiscs do have
> some internal priorization. The question is whether all qdiscs need
> it; I tend to think no.

Looking at qdisc_peek_len() seems to confirm a peek would be useful.
But since this all started from the question if ->requeue() could be
killed or simplified, I wonder if adding this peek could really help
with this problem without too much reworking. It looks like at least
sch_netem would still need more.

But if it's rather about adding something new and useful I'm OK with
this. Anyway, I need some time to rethink this one and your previous
description.

Thanks,
Jarek P.
--
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