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
