On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:56 AM, David Goulet <dgou...@torproject.org> wrote: > > On 15 Nov (13:49:54), Nick Mathewson wrote:
[...] > > > On the other hand, this doesn't mean that the FIFO structure we have today > > is a good idea at all. It probably makes sense to use the same priority > > queue-based scheduler thing that we use everywhere else, but possibly with > > a different (inverted??) priority parameter for destroyed circuits. > > (We kind of need the FIFO concept for cells afaict because of the parent > relationship between cells with their digest (à la git). And that is of course > per circuit.) > Are you sure? DESTROY cells aren't relay cells; they don't have relay crypto done to them, and I think it's okay to re-order them with respect to other cells. I don't think they have a digest on them, do they? peace, -- Nick _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
