| To: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [leo@xxxxxxxxx: [PATCH] ethernet-bridge: update skb->priority in case forwarded frame has VLAN-header] |
| From: | Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:53:39 +0100 |
| Cc: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, leo@xxxxxxxxx, Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1110238537.1043.62.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050305141225.GA5180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4229D98F.9010008@xxxxxxxxx> <422A0C21.3050709@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1110199696.1094.1299.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0503072034340.5934@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1110238537.1043.62.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050106 Debian/1.7.5-1 |
jamal wrote: The priority should still start at 0. You don't want to create a 16-band queue just to have 8 bands unused.say what?;-> Nothing has to start at 0. 16 priorities does not equate to16 queues. Right. But the default pfifo_fast/prio mapping maps the upper 8 values to queue 1, which seems to make this effort kind of useless. I don't know if the default-mapping of the lower 8 values is useable in this context, I need to inform myself more on this subject (thanks for the IEEE vs. IETF pointers). Regards Patrick |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Do you know the TCP stack? (127.x.x.x routing), jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC] neighbour tables configuration via rtnetlink, jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [leo@xxxxxxxxx: [PATCH] ethernet-bridge: update skb->priority in case forwarded frame has VLAN-header], jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [leo@xxxxxxxxx: [PATCH] ethernet-bridge: update skb->priority in case forwarded frame has VLAN-header], jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |