On Mon, 2006-16-01 at 05:35 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > jamal wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-16-01 at 01:23 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > > > > > 1) If i specify no bands i get 3 bands and a priomap which says how you > > map packets to 3 queues. > > > > 2) If i specify 4 queues, without this, i get a priomap which says how > > to map to 3 queues. I really should specify mapping to 4 queues. > > This is where we disagree. Prio includes a mechanism for classification > without priomap, so its not neccessary that priomap includes all bands. Indeed this is where we disagree. It is also not necessary to assume that all bands are fifo ;-> This is a decision that needs to be made by something smarter than the kernel (the policy decision point - i.e user space). > I've actually used it like that many times, but in that case the scripts > were automatically generated and all inner qdiscs explicitly configured. > Same here - I have always configured appropriately. In the case where the discussion started, a certain assumption was made. > > note (If i specified 2 queues for example instead of 4 i still get the > > default priomap) > > > > #2 is enforced by this fix. > > > > Nothing is made harder at all. > > Well no, but the patch which started this thread intended to make the > case where priomap is not used easier by creating inner qdiscs for > all bands instead of just the ones contained in priomap. In the > case where priomap is used nothing really changes, because by default > all bands are contained in it anyway. > Ok, I will make it simpler: Should tc configure 3 bands in the priomap if i specify 2 bands? It does. Extend that arguement to if i specified 10 bands, should the priomap only contain 3 bands? 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
