Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*2\.6\:\s+QoS\s+scheduling\s+not\s+working\s+with\s+IP\-over\-IP\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*2\.6\:\s+QoS\s+scheduling\s+not\s+working\s+with\s+IP\-over\-IP\s*$/: 38 ]

Total 38 documents matching your query.

1. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:05:49 -0800; [ moving from linux-kernel to correct mailing list... ] Czesc Dawid, Can you assign QoS schedulers and classifiers successfully to eth0 or some other non ipip device? Does it work with 'tunl0' instea; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00303.html (9,257 bytes)
2. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: s <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 11 Feb 2004 23:51:29 -0500; Actually this may be a result of the recent tweak to the scheduler code that seems to be in 2.6.2. The fix seems to fix the off by one in pfifo. cheers, jamal; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00307.html (10,311 bytes)
3. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author:; Date: 11 Feb 2004 23:59:58 -0500; What the heck, heres a patch (maybe it ll teach that poster to post to netdev instead of lk ;->). Not tested not even compiled but looks fine. ipip was always broken; the pfifo off by one fix in 2.6; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00308.html (11,491 bytes)
4. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: 藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 12 Feb 2004 00:04:42 -0500; More complete patch attached for other broken tunnel devices. Note the bug exists in 2.4 as well but is masquareded by a boundary bug in pfifo. cheers, jamal Attachment: p1 Description: Text document; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00309.html (10,381 bytes)
5. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: f@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:15:36 -0800; OK, however, old behavior would be like setting tx_queue_len to '1'. Do we wish to preserve this?; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00311.html (9,914 bytes)
6. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: id S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 12 Feb 2004 00:25:02 -0500; All the alloc_netdev() types of calls dont set this - so default is zero. Maybe we could move it there. 100 seems to be what a lot of 10/100 ether devices set things to be. Note that ifconfig and ip; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00314.html (10,907 bytes)
7. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 12 Feb 2004 00:43:59 -0500; I think i misunderstood you - you are saying maybe it was not a bug after all in pfifo, right? i.e the off by one is ok. I suppose you could look at it that way; i am just baffled that tunnels worked; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00316.html (10,934 bytes)
8. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:51:42 -0800; No, you understood me the first time. I am saying, the PFIFO fix was correct. And therefore if we are to preserve the tunnel device behavior precisely to what happened before the PFIFO fix we must se; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00317.html (11,362 bytes)
9. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 12 Feb 2004 01:09:36 -0500; ok, makes sense ;-> cheers, jamal; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00322.html (11,239 bytes)
10. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: uji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:22:59 -0800; Great, here is the patch I am testing now. BTW, you missed fixing up the xxx0 device in each of these things. == net/ipv4/ip_gre.c 1.34 vs edited == -- 1.34/net/ipv4/ip_gre.c Tue Oct 28 01:13:14 2003; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00324.html (13,062 bytes)
11. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:36:06 -0800; Thanks for spotting this. Another way to view this is that configurations that, while nonsensical, used to send packets properly no longer do. However, I do agree with you, and we should not promote; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00355.html (12,386 bytes)
12. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: i@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 14 Feb 2004 07:45:58 -0500; I concur. But you gotta admit if that was a bug, it was the fastest fixed bug of the week ;-> cheers, jamal; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00361.html (11,866 bytes)
13. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 14 Feb 2004 08:06:37 -0500; On second thought: Dawid noticed that SFQ and RED appear immune to this problem (i think any non classful qdisc would exhibit same behavior). Maybe we should allow for this behavior for consistency.; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00362.html (12,425 bytes)
14. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: ller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:49:58 -0800; I don't know how wise this tx_queue_len fiddling is. With this, if user modifies tx_queue_len himself, on ifdown this configuration change is lost if user sets it explicitly to '1'. See? In fact you; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00369.html (11,853 bytes)
15. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:30:05 +0100; David S. Miller wrote: I don't know how wise this tx_queue_len fiddling is. With this, if user modifies tx_queue_len himself, on ifdown this configuration change is lost if user sets it explicitly to; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00374.html (13,703 bytes)
16. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: s <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 14 Feb 2004 08:56:21 -0500; And the closest to a sane patch in 30 secs that compiles is attached to describe the idea. cheers, jamal Attachment: p2 Description: Text document; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00391.html (13,190 bytes)
17. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:10:11 -0800; Patrick, "(x || 1)" is not the same as "(x ? x : 1)" Please make a new patch.; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00413.html (11,642 bytes)
18. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: ns@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:21:22 +0100; David S. Miller wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:30:05 +0100 Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I guess he meant something like this, but I still think it encourages broken configurations in combi; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00416.html (13,885 bytes)
19. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:22:06 -0800; New patch applied, thanks Patrick.; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00425.html (11,574 bytes)
20. Re: 2.6: QoS scheduling not working with IP-over-IP (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:05:49 -0800; [ moving from linux-kernel to correct mailing list... ] Czesc Dawid, Can you assign QoS schedulers and classifiers successfully to eth0 or some other non ipip device? Does it work with 'tunl0' instea; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg01044.html (9,405 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]