On Tue, 2006-31-01 at 01:16 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> David S. Miller wrote:
> > From: dean gaudet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:22:40 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >
> >>let me know what you think... i'd like to get something like this patch
> >>included upstream so i can eliminate
David S. Miller wrote:
> From: dean gaudet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:22:40 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>>let me know what you think... i'd like to get something like this patch
>>included upstream so i can eliminate a patch from several of my kernels.
>
>
> The RTA length check is a l
From: dean gaudet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:22:40 -0800 (PST)
> let me know what you think... i'd like to get something like this patch
> included upstream so i can eliminate a patch from several of my kernels.
The RTA length check is a little hackish. Maybe use a new
attribu
hi,
i've always found it unfortunate that sfq includes the destination port in
the hash because so-called "download accelerators" which issue a bunch of
simultaneous http range-requests with non-overlapping ranges end up
getting an unfair share of the bandwidth. so i've modified sfq with an
o
