[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v9paoz4g.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 16:56:31 +0100
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: gautamramk@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "Mohit P. Tahiliani" <tahiliani@...k.edu.in>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Leslie Monis <lesliemonis@...il.com>,
"Sachin D . Patil" <sdp.sachin@...il.com>,
"V . Saicharan" <vsaicharan1998@...il.com>,
Mohit Bhasi <mohitbhasi1998@...il.com>,
Gautam Ramakrishnan <gautamramk@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] net: sched: pie: refactor code
gautamramk@...il.com writes:
> From: "Mohit P. Tahiliani" <tahiliani@...k.edu.in>
>
> This patch is a precursor for the addition of the Flow Queue Proportional
> Integral Controller Enhanced (FQ-PIE) qdisc. The patch removes structures
> and small inline functions common to both PIE and FQ-PIE and moves it to
> the header file include/net/pie.h. It also exports symbols from sch_pie.c
> that are to be reused in sch_fq_pie.c.
The way this is done means that sch_fq_pie.ko will end up with a module
dependency on sch_pie.ko, right? I don't think we have any such
dependencies already; not *necessarily* a blocker, but it does strike me
as a bit odd. Stephen, is this what you had in mind?
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists