On Mon, 2006-16-01 at 05:56 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > jamal wrote:
> > Indeed this is where we disagree. > > It is also not necessary to assume that all bands are fifo ;-> > > I don't see how this is related. > When you initialize a band that is not specified in the priomap, you make the call that i wanted it to be fifo. > > This is a decision that needs to be made by something smarter than the > > kernel (the policy decision point - i.e user space). > > So you're fine with having a default picked by the kernel for all bands > contained in priomap, but not for others, even though the users told > the kernel to add the other bands? That doesn't convince me. > I am against the kernel intepreting what the user wants. All bands that dont appear in the map are initialized to noop unless the user says otherwise. They say otherwise via a priomap This is a dead horse since I ACKed the patch, but that patch is _wrong_ without the user space fix. > > Ok, I will make it simpler: > > Should tc configure 3 bands in the priomap if i specify 2 bands? > > It does. > > If it does the kernel will reject it. > ;-> so in your opinion was it fine for tc to send it anyways or does tc need fixing? ;-> > Extend that arguement to if i specified 10 bands, should the > > priomap only contain 3 bands? > > To put it simple: I don't care about priomap. It is one of two > mechanisms to classify in the prio qdisc and it makes no sense > to force users to use it. Then why bother sending a priomap at all? Lets just use the one in the kernel 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
