If you dont mind please stop ccing lartc - they keep bouncing my mail. On Tue, 2006-14-03 at 10:31 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
> Anyway, jokes aside, the situation we have now is the > current "tc" doesn't work with the current kernel. Slow down: The two perceived problematic combos are: a) old hash in tc for the case of sample with kernel 2.6 with current hash. - This is not a problem if you use a single byte. Usage of anything other than one byte is not documented anywhere as you point out. Therefore the issue of backward compatibility is not a big deal IMO because it is hardly used as a feature. People who are brave such as yourself, who go beyond the 1 byte or less than a byte can be brave enough to upgrade as well. b) new hash (if it is to be upgraded) with 2.4.x Again non-issue with 1 byte. Issues show up if you use > or < 1 byte. And besides if you really insist, look at using hashkey - it will work a lot better since the dependency is only at the kernel and none at user space. [You made assertions that the old hash was better - can we please defer that discussion to later and resolve this first? There are many variables that you ignored in your derivation (we can discuss what those are later)] So my take on this is: either forget about making any changes at all or fix things so going forward they will work(which is the recommendation i have made). Backward compatibility is a less important issue for something that perhaps a handful of people use (I consider myself a nig user of u32 and hardly use this feature). 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
