On 12/03/2012 10:55 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 30.11.2012 21:55, Laine Stump wrote:
>> On 11/19/2012 11:51 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> With current implementation, class ID is just incremented. This can
>>> lead to its exhaustion as tc accepts only 16 bits long identifiers.
>>> Hence, it's better if we allow class ID to be reused. To keep track
>>> which IDs are free and which are taken virBitmap is used. This requires
>>> network status file to change a bit: from <class_id next="5"/> to
>>> <class_id bitmap="0-4"/>. But since the previous format hasn't been
>>> released, it doesn't really matter.
>> Heh. Well, there you have it. :-) You've already implemented what I
>> suggested in the review of 5/10. But rather than introducing one
>> implementation that we need to review, then almost immediately replacing
>> it with something else, why not just implement it this way to begin with?
> Because I think 5/10 is big enough already :)

I actually don't mind large patches, as long as they're not mixing up a
bunch of unrelated stuff. (And I don't mind split patches *too* much as
long as a later patch doesn't undo too much stuff that was just put in
with an earlier patch.)

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

Reply via email to