netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [leo@xxxxxxxxx: [PATCH] ethernet-bridge: update skb->priority in cas

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 to
16 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>