Re: "real" ingres implementation

[jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>]

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 ;->

cheers,
jamal