> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tuong Lien <tuong.t.l...@dektech.com.au>
> Sent: 26-Aug-19 07:46
> To: Jon Maloy <jon.ma...@ericsson.com>; ma...@donjonn.com;
> ying....@windriver.com; tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [PATCH RFC] tipc: improve bundle algorithm
>
> Signed-off-by: Tuong Lien <tuong.t.l...@dektech.com.au>
> ---
> net/tipc/link.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++----------- net/tipc/msg.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
[...]
> @@ -544,7 +544,7 @@ bool tipc_msg_make_bundle(struct sk_buff **skb,
> struct tipc_msg *msg,
> tipc_msg_init(msg_prevnode(msg), bmsg, MSG_BUNDLER, 0,
> INT_H_SIZE, dnode);
> if (msg_isdata(msg))
> - msg_set_importance(bmsg, TIPC_CRITICAL_IMPORTANCE);
> + msg_set_importance(bmsg, msg_importance(msg));
> else
> msg_set_importance(bmsg, TIPC_SYSTEM_IMPORTANCE);
The if-clause is not necessary any more. You can assign the importance of the
inner message directly to the bundle.
You can do that here, or inside the "tipc_make_bundle" branch of
tipc_link_xmit().
Otherwise I think this is a smart, although not very elegant, solution to our
problem.
Maybe you could steal some of the log text from my first suggestion to this
patch? I think that describes the problem well.
Acked-by: Jon
///jon
> msg_set_seqno(bmsg, msg_seqno(msg));
> --
> 2.13.7
_______________________________________________
tipc-discussion mailing list
tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
