Subject: Re: Billing 1: WAS (Re: [PATCH 2/4] deferred drop, __parent workaround, reshape_fail , [email-masked] ,

From: sandr8 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:33:19 +0200

jamal wrote:

>Apologies for latency - was busy at (my real) work.
>  
>
you don't have to apologize for that :) it's something
everybody can easily understand :)

>Let me break this email into several ones since it is getting long.
>
>On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 09:40, sandr8 wrote:
>  
>
>>something like enqueue(dev) that will indirectly call dev->qdisc->enqueue
>>and handle in that single place that stuff that does not fit well in 
>>net/core/dev.c
>>    
>>
>
>Enqueue of _root_ qdisc is the place to do it.
>Maybe even dev.c calls to it. Lets defer this to the next email.
>  
>
then i should add some code in every qdisc that can
be root and execute it only if it is actually root?

isn't it more complex?

>Let me say this:
>I am happy with Haralds billing patch which is already in as is.
>In other words, although there is an accounting discrepancy it is not
>that big.
>What does that mean? unbilling is not something to rush in and patch in
>if its going to have an impact on other pieces. It doesnt matter whether
>it goes in in 2.6.20 or doesnt even go in as far as i am concerned. 
>However this shouldnt dicourage you because you have actually opened an
>issue we need to resolve. So please keep up the discussions.
>  
>
sure, for the time being i thought to simply concentrate
on the rest and maintain it as indipendent as possible
from the choice that will be taken.

cheers
alessandro