On Sun, 2016-06-12 at 20:51 +0300, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> > On 12 Jun, 2016, at 20:48, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> >> A) In my failing to make sense of all the dialog around these patches
> >> ( https://lwn.net/Articles/687617/ ), it sounds like this (inbound
> >> and
>> And there’s also the problem that we might not need to drop packets as
>> large as the incoming packet in order to fit the latter into the queue
>> - so this corrected correction may be *negative* (the queue is longer
>> than before) - but qdisc_tree_reduce_backlog() only takes an unsigned
>>
On 07/06/16 16:05, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
On 07/06/16 15:50, Jonathan Morton wrote:
On 7 Jun, 2016, at 14:20, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
wrote:
I had a nose at CAKE but couldn't quit work out if a similar issue
is present but I suspect it is.
On 07/06/16 15:50, Jonathan Morton wrote:
On 7 Jun, 2016, at 14:20, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
wrote:
I had a nose at CAKE but couldn't quit work out if a similar issue is present but I
suspect it is. Certainly if Eric can't get it right "My prior attempt to fix
> On 7 Jun, 2016, at 14:20, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
> wrote:
>
> I had a nose at CAKE but couldn't quit work out if a similar issue is present
> but I suspect it is. Certainly if Eric can't get it right "My prior attempt
> to fix the backlogs of parents