On Mon, 2006-16-01 at 05:24 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > jamal wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-16-01 at 01:21 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > > >> > >>Well, part of the mechanism is manuall classification without > >>the priomap using filters or skb->priority. So I disagree with > >>this statement. > > > > > > So lets agree to disagree then. > > > > If i create a policy which specifies what packets should go to what > > queues, then that is the intent i was shooting for. I dont expect the > > system to "fix it" for me. > > If I say I want n bands, I don't want half of them initialized and > the other half not. That's just confusing.
Thats where we disagree - The kernel should not be making such decisions. Corrolary: If i wanted to have the blackhole in the 4th queue now i cant. > I also don't want to > unnecessarily specify a priomap that looks like "0 1 2 3 ... n" > to get consistent behaviour. Thats why we have a default ;-> Anything else you must specify. Try configuring two bands - newer kernels can handle it just fine; older ones used to oops. > So what's the problem with just > initializing all bands? I think we can assume that if a user says > he wants 6 bands, he really does want them. I don't see what an > artificial dependency on priomap is going to solve. The priomap says how to map packets to queues. There is a _dependency_ with the number of queus i.e it is not artificial. cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
