On 04/26/2016 06:36 AM, Michal Kazior wrote:
On 26 April 2016 at 08:43, Sedat Dilek <sedat.di...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/16, Michal Kazior <michal.kaz...@tieto.com> wrote:
On 26 April 2016 at 08:09, Sedat Dilek <sedat.di...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I had a very quick view on net-next.git#master (up to commit
fab7b629a82da1b59620470d13152aff975239f6).
Commit in [1] aka "codel: split into multiple files" removed codel.h
but [2] and [3] have relicts to it.
Forgot to remove?
codel.h was not removed. diffstat for codel.h is all red which I
presume is why you thought of it as removed, see:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/tree/include/net/codel.h?id=d068ca2ae2e614b9a418fb3b5f1fd4cf996ff032
[ CC Jens ]
OK.
So what are the plans in the future?
Keep a "generic" codel.h (compatibility reasons?) for net or is it your split?
I'm interested in re-using codel in mac80211 for wireless. cfg80211
drivers may want to do that as well later. Even vendor drivers could
start to use it (I can dream :).
I plan to re-spin my patches soonish re-based on the new codel.h/fq.h
approach. There's quite a few spins already[1].
AFAICS I have seen a codel-implementation in block.git#wb-buf-throttle.
Does it make sense to have a more "super-generic" codel.h for re-use
(not only for net and block)?
Just a thought.
Oh, I'm not really familiar with block and problems around it but it
sounds reasonable and interesting. It doesn't look like it blatantly
copies codel though (I did that in my initial mac80211 patches with
some adjustments, you can check that in the link[1] which you can
lookup via my patchset's cover letter[2]; I've based off of codel5[3]
back then).
The block version is an adaptation, I guess you can say it pays homage
to CoDel. But there are a sufficient amount of differences between
networking and storage that I don't think a fully generic version is
really feasible. My favorite thing to bring up is the fact that we don't
have the luxury of dropping packets on the storage side...
--
Jens Axboe
