On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>>>
>>> That is not in net-next, and the "net" version of that one patch does
>>> not apply to net-next. The relevant thread says "... another
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>>
>> That is not in net-next, and the "net" version of that one patch does
>> not apply to net-next. The relevant thread says "... another fun merge
>> into net-next".
>>
>> Please let me know wh
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> That is not in net-next, and the "net" version of that one patch does
> not apply to net-next. The relevant thread says "... another fun merge
> into net-next".
>
> Please let me know when the fun is done, and I'll retest.
-net is merged into -
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>> I am using a fairly complex htb + three tiers of fq_codel and a couple
>> tc filters (it's the sqm-scripts "simple.qos" model). I rebased on
>> net-next head an hour ago, and
>>
>> [8.
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> I am using a fairly complex htb + three tiers of fq_codel and a couple
> tc filters (it's the sqm-scripts "simple.qos" model). I rebased on
> net-next head an hour ago, and
>
> [8.357963] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): enp2s0: link becom
I am using a fairly complex htb + three tiers of fq_codel and a couple
tc filters (it's the sqm-scripts "simple.qos" model). I rebased on
net-next head an hour ago, and
[8.357963] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): enp2s0: link becomes ready
[9.759942] u32 classifier
[9.759944] Act
