Subject: Re: Question about HFSC atm+man patches

From: Patrick McHardy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:48:43 +0100

Michal Soltys wrote:
> One question regarding size tables:
> 
> Should I assume that subsequent qdiscs attached to HFSC leaves will not 
> use [different] size tables ?
> 
> This is currently the case, but from the perspective of a generic 
> solution - if some inner qdisc changes pkt_len stored in cb area during 
> qdisc_enqueue, then HFSC might get wrong size during peek operation.
> 
> As leaves will usually have "simple" work-conserving qdiscs attached, 
> this is probably not an issue, but ...

Using different size tables for inner qdiscs is supposed to work.
What is the "wrong size"? ->peek() should return a packet with the
size the same as ->dequeue() would, which I think it does.