Russell Stuart wrote:
On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 10:13 -0400, jamal wrote:
And yes, I was arguing that the tc scheme you describe would not be so
bad either if the cost of making a generic change is expensive.
<snip>
Patrick seems to have a simple way to compensate generically for link
layer fragmentation, so i will not argue the practically; hopefully that
settles it? ;->
Things seem to have died down. Patrick's patch seemed
unrelated to ATM to me. I did put up another suggestion,
but I don't think anybody was too impressed with the
idea. So that leave the current ATM patch as the only
one we have on the table that addresses the ATM issue.
FWIW I think it may be possible to do it Patricks' way, as if I read it
properly he will end up with the ATM cell train length which gets
shifted by cell_log and looked up as before. The ATM length will be in
steps of 53 so with cell_log 3 or 4 I think there will be no collisions
- so special rate tables for ATM can still be made perfect.
As you say, I think mpu should be added aswell - so eth/other can benefit.
Andy.
-
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
