Russell, I apologize i havent followed the latest discussion to the detail. My understanding of Patricks work was it solved the ATM problem as well. I think he is busy somewhere - lets give him an opportunity to respond and i will try to catchup with the thread as well.
cheers, jamal On Tue, 2006-18-07 at 12:06 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote: > On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 10:13 -0400, jamal wrote: > > And yes, I was arguing that the tc scheme you describe would not be so > > bad either if the cost of making a generic change is expensive. > <snip> > > Patrick seems to have a simple way to compensate generically for link > > layer fragmentation, so i will not argue the practically; hopefully that > > settles it? ;-> > > Things seem to have died down. Patrick's patch seemed > unrelated to ATM to me. I did put up another suggestion, > but I don't think anybody was too impressed with the > idea. So that leave the current ATM patch as the only > one we have on the table that addresses the ATM issue. > > Since you don't think it is "too bad", can we proceed > with it? > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
