Russell Stuart wrote: > Yuk! Now the user has to say whether he wants to use > STAB's or not? Currently, apart from some debugging > params to tc, the user isn't even aware that the > traffic control is implemented in terms of RTAB's. > That is how it should be - it is an implementation > detail.
Of course he has to, just like your "atm" parameter. In case of stabs it would be something like "stab atm". >>I think this is a different problem. If you replace RTABs >>by STABs you again can't use it for anything that is only >>interested in the size, not the transmission time (HFSC, >>SFQ, ...). > > > I was a little too brief. > > The comment stems from the observation that in all > current implementations: > > const A_CONSTANT; > for (i = 0; i < 256; i += 1) > assert(RTAB[i] == STAB[i] * A_CONSTANT); > > Ergo, if in addition to implementing STAB as you > plan to, A_CONSTANT was shipped to the kernel then > RTAB could be replaced. At least look at the patch I sent. STAB mapping is _not_ a multiplication by a constant (which wouldn't be able to express minimum packet size or padding to multiples of cell sizes). - 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
