On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 17:00 +0100, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> >
> > The documentation doesn't match the code though.
>
> Since I did not see your original mail, only Toke's response, which
> documentation is wrong here?
Ah, I had missed that the docs were updated already on 6 Jan 2022.
> On Jan 27, 2022, at 10:00, Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant via Cake
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 25 Jan 2022, at 10:58, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>
>> Matt Johnston writes:
>>
>>> The CS1 priority (index 0x08) was changed from 0 to 1 when LE (index
>>> 0x01) was added. This looks
Hi Matt,
> On Jan 27, 2022, at 04:14, Matt Johnston wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2022-01-25 at 12:54 +0100, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>>
>> LE(1) is tin 0 the lowest
>> CS1(8) is 1 slightly above LE
>> CS0/BE(0) is 2
>> AF1x (10, 12, 14) are all in tin 1 as is CS1
> ...
>> Just as documented in the
On Tue, 2022-01-25 at 12:54 +0100, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>
> LE(1) is tin 0 the lowest
> CS1(8) is 1 slightly above LE
> CS0/BE(0) is 2
> AF1x (10, 12, 14) are all in tin 1 as is CS1
...
> Just as documented in the code:
>
> *Bog Standard (CS0 etc.)
> *
> On 25 Jan 2022, at 10:58, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Matt Johnston writes:
>
>> The CS1 priority (index 0x08) was changed from 0 to 1 when LE (index
>> 0x01) was added. This looks unintentional, it doesn't match the
>> docs and CS1 shouldn't be the same tin as AF1x
>
> Hmm, Kevin,
Mmmh,
> On Jan 25, 2022, at 11:58, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Matt Johnston writes:
>
>> The CS1 priority (index 0x08) was changed from 0 to 1 when LE (index
>> 0x01) was added. This looks unintentional, it doesn't match the
>> docs and CS1 shouldn't be the same tin as AF1x
>
> Hmm,
The CS1 priority (index 0x08) was changed from 0 to 1 when LE (index
0x01) was added. This looks unintentional, it doesn't match the
docs and CS1 shouldn't be the same tin as AF1x
Signed-off-by: Matt Johnston
Fixes: b8392808eb3f ("sch_cake: add RFC 8622 LE PHB support to CAKE diffserv
Matt Johnston writes:
> The CS1 priority (index 0x08) was changed from 0 to 1 when LE (index
> 0x01) was added. This looks unintentional, it doesn't match the
> docs and CS1 shouldn't be the same tin as AF1x
Hmm, Kevin, any comments?
-Toke
___
Cake
