netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2-next 0/9] Add tc-mqprio and tc-taprio support for preemptible traffic classes

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]

Date:   Mon, 03 Apr 2023 13:30:06 +0200
From:   Ferenc Fejes <fejes@....elte.hu>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Péter Antal <antal.peti99@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next 0/9] Add tc-mqprio and tc-taprio support
 for preemptible traffic classes

Hi Vladimir!

On Mon, 2023-04-03 at 14:23 +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Ferenc,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 01:18:07PM +0200, Ferenc Fejes wrote:
> > Seems like Stephen merged Péter's manpages patch [1] but IMO your
> > version [2] is a better overhaul of that, also Péter ACK-ed to go
> > forward with that version. Looks like you rebased this work on the
> > new
> > manpages, you have any plan to submit the changes from [2]
> > separately?
> > Probably Stephen missed the whole discussion and about [2] and I'm
> > admit that putting acked/reviewed into a mail inside the discussion
> > might be misleading (probably thats show up for the original patch
> > in
> > patchwork). Sorry for making it complicated.
> > [1]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/167789641838.26474.2747633103367439718.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org/
> > 
> > [2]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230220161809.t2vj6daixio7uzbw@skbuf/
> 
> Yes, this is true. I still have the delta between Péter's merged
> version
> and my suggested changes, but it needs to be broken up into a
> gazillion
> smaller patches which I haven't done yet. I now also doubt the value
> of
> some of those changes as standalone patches. I wanted to get the
> preemption
> stuff over with first, and this is why I've submitted only what I
> have.

Understandable, thanks for the info. With all respect of your time, it
would be nice if those changes make their way into the manpages in one
way or another. I think it has enough value in its own too, but I agree
it has much lower prio than having FP merged and running :-)

Ferenc