On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 08:51 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:41:53 +0200 Phil Sutter <p...@nwl.cc> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:11:57PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > [...] > > > > > > But adding a flag risks breaking external scripts. > > > > Could you please elaborate on this? As far as I can tell, introducing a > > separate flag is the only solution *not* breaking existing scripts. So > > if you see the rub, I would like to know where exactly it is. > > I agree with Phil. AFAIC see this approach does not break existing > scripts. > > Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <bro...@redhat.com> >
But, what is the long term plan ? If long term plan is to change veth txqueuelen to 0, we said no. (because it is too late and this change will break some setups) If not, this flag wont help the case you want to optimize anyway. (ie : veth with no qdisc) So really, _new_ user scripts should either: make sure a qdisc is not there, or is there. Relying on a new flag wont help. There is no point adding this flag as such if we do not take proper decisions. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
