[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1384469516.28716.48.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:51:56 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, maze@...gle.com, willemb@...gle.com,
ycheng@...gle.com, ncardwell@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: fq: fix pacing for small frames
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 17:22 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:58:16 -0800
>
> > @@ -655,9 +664,6 @@ static int fq_change(struct Qdisc *sch, struct nlattr *opt)
> > if (tb[TCA_FQ_INITIAL_QUANTUM])
> > q->initial_quantum = nla_get_u32(tb[TCA_FQ_INITIAL_QUANTUM]);
> >
> > - if (tb[TCA_FQ_FLOW_DEFAULT_RATE])
> > - q->flow_default_rate = nla_get_u32(tb[TCA_FQ_FLOW_DEFAULT_RATE]);
> > -
> > if (tb[TCA_FQ_FLOW_MAX_RATE])
> > q->flow_max_rate = nla_get_u32(tb[TCA_FQ_FLOW_MAX_RATE]);
> >
>
> I think it's at best confusing to suddenly stop ignoring a configuration
> parameter the user is giving us.
>
> Can you at least ratelimit warn if the parameter is specified so the user
> has some chance to figure out what is happening?
Oh this parameter was removed in 7eec4174ff29cd
("pkt_sched: fq: fix non TCP flows pacing"), I probably should
have added this warning at that time...
OK, we can warn the user, will send a v2.
--
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