[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "real" ingres implementation
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Oh, I see ... yes, you have a point there. For bastard qdiscs (*) like
> dsmark, this makes sense indeed, ugly as it is ...
> (* work-conserving isn't enough, because for local delivery, you don't
> have useful backpressure, so it really has to be a qdisc that neither
> delays nor depends on backpressure. This leaves ingress, dsmark ...
> and maybe sch_atm - now *that* would be dirty ;-)
Do we really need to make it complicated? We can imagine we never had this
conversation, for example ;->