From: bert hubert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:21:53 +0200
Operators, distributors and even people who've been doing kernel stuff for
more than a decade expect to be able to compile in (experimental) policies,
and not have a *random* one of them enabled by default!
We created
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:51:30AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
We created TCP_CONG_ADVANCED for a purpose. If you turn that
thing on, you get full control but if something breaks you get
to keep the pieces.
But we should not try to break stuff on purpose, no matter how advanced. It
makes zero
From: bert hubert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:59:36 +0200
I've tested this patch and it does the job for me, reno is now the default,
even when more advanced options are compiled in, but the rest is still
available.
This breaks our intention that when TCP_CONG_ADVANCED is not
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 07:06:00AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
Any ordering scheme is wrong or unexpected for _somebody_. Look how
I agree violently. Would you agree that it would be best to have a mechanism
that explicitly sets a sane default, and does not rely on ordering?
My implementation
From: bert hubert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:40:48 +0200
What would the desired default be, 'BIC' in all cases?
And if BIC is not enabled in the configuration, then what?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 11:53:09AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
What would the desired default be, 'BIC' in all cases?
And if BIC is not enabled in the configuration, then what?
As the source notes /* we'll always have reno */ . This would make the
policy: the default is bic if available,
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:51:50 +0200
bert hubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The original message Stephen reacts to below apparently never made it to the
list, it can be found here: http://ds9a.nl/tmp/module-policy.txt
Any body who builds in random stuff without thinking is being foolish.
But,
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:21:53 +0200
bert hubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 08:53:51PM +0900, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Depending on load order is not good, and not a safe way to configure.
I agree fully.
If you want a particular value set it with sysctl!
The original message Stephen reacts to below apparently never made it to the
list, it can be found here: http://ds9a.nl/tmp/module-policy.txt
Any body who builds in random stuff without thinking is being foolish.
But, if you can think of a better configuration method that isn't too
grotty,
