Corey Hickey wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>> -sch->qstats.drops++;
>>
>> A line in the changelog explaining that this was increased twice
>> would have been nice.
>
>
> Certainly; I think I didn't realize, when you originally pointed out the
> duplicate incrementing, that it was a bug
Patrick McHardy wrote:
Corey Hickey wrote:
Make a new function sfq_q_enqueue() that operates directly on the
queue data. This will be useful for implementing sfq_change() in
a later patch. A pleasant side-effect is reducing most of the
duplicate code in sfq_enqueue() and sfq_requeue().
Similarl
Corey Hickey wrote:
> Make a new function sfq_q_enqueue() that operates directly on the
> queue data. This will be useful for implementing sfq_change() in
> a later patch. A pleasant side-effect is reducing most of the
> duplicate code in sfq_enqueue() and sfq_requeue().
>
> Similarly, make a new
Make a new function sfq_q_enqueue() that operates directly on the
queue data. This will be useful for implementing sfq_change() in
a later patch. A pleasant side-effect is reducing most of the
duplicate code in sfq_enqueue() and sfq_requeue().
Similarly, make a new function sfq_q_dequeue().
Signe
Make a new function sfq_q_enqueue() that operates directly on the
queue data. This will be useful for implementing sfq_change() in
a later patch. A pleasant side-effect is reducing most of the
duplicate code in sfq_enqueue() and sfq_requeue().
Similarly, make a new function sfq_q_dequeue().
Signe
