[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJJHLuaymMEdDowharvyJr+6ta2Tg9XAR3aM+4=ysu+bg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:03:35 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch net-next v2] net_sched: introduce eBPF based Qdisc
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 8:59 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 6:27 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> > > ---
> > > v2: Rebase on latest net-next
> > > Make the code more complete (but still incomplete)
> >
> > What is the point of v2 when feedback on the first RFC was ignored?
>
> They are not ignored for two reasons:
>
> 1) I responded to those reasonable ones in the original thread. Clearly
> you missed them.
Multiple people in the v1 thread made it clear that the approach
presented in v1 is not generic enough. v2 made no attempt to
address these concerns.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists