Corey Hickey wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>> +nest = RTA_NEST_COMPAT(skb, TCA_OPTIONS, sizeof(opt), &opt);
>>> +
>>> +RTA_PUT_U32(skb, TCA_SFQ_QUANTUM, q->quantum);
>>> +RTA_PUT_U32(skb, TCA_SFQ_PERTURB, q->perturb_period);
>>> +RTA_PUT_U32(skb, TCA_SFQ_LIMIT, q->limit);
>>
Patrick McHardy wrote:
Corey Hickey wrote:
+
+#define GET_PARAM(dst, nest, compat) do { \
+ struct rtattr *rta = tb[(nest) - 1]; \
+ if (rta) \
+ (dst) = RTA_GET_U32(rta); \
+ else if ((compat)) \
+ (dst) = (compat); \
+} while (0)
An inline funct
Corey Hickey wrote:
> This fixes the ambiguity between, for example:
> tc qdisc change ... perturb 0
> tc qdisc change ...
>
> Without this patch, there is no way for SFQ to differentiate between
> a parameter specified to be 0 and a parameter that was omitted.
>
> diff --git a/net/sched/sch_sfq
This fixes the ambiguity between, for example:
tc qdisc change ... perturb 0
tc qdisc change ...
Without this patch, there is no way for SFQ to differentiate between
a parameter specified to be 0 and a parameter that was omitted.
Signed-off-by: Corey Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/
This fixes the ambiguity between, for example:
tc qdisc change ... perturb 0
tc qdisc change ...
Without this patch, there is no way for SFQ to differentiate between
a parameter specified to be 0 and a parameter that was omitted.
Signed-off-by: Corey Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/
