Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:50:06 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: MQ Patch. Message-ID: <52701F7E.2060604@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <13BF1F55-EC13-482B-AF7D-59AE039F877D@lakerest.net> References: <40948D79-E890-4360-A3F2-BEC34A389C7E@lakerest.net> <526FFED9.1070704@freebsd.org> <CA%2BhQ2%2BgTc87M0f5pvFeW_GCZDogrLkT_1S2bKHngNcDEBUeZYQ@mail.gmail.com> <13BF1F55-EC13-482B-AF7D-59AE039F877D@lakerest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29.10.2013 21:20, Randall Stewart wrote: >> So, to conclude: i fully support any plan to design something that lets us >> implement scheduling (and qos, if you want to call it this way) >> in a reasonable way, but what is in your patch now does not really >> seem to improve the current situation in any way. > > Its a step towards fixing that I am allowed to give. I can see > why Company's get frustrated with trying to give anything to the project. Well, that we have a problem in that area is known and acknowledged and there is active work in this area going on. It would be very problematic if every vendor were just to through some stuff over the fence and have it integrated as is. It would quickly become very messy. In many specific purpose geared products a number of shortcuts can be taken that may not be appropriate for a general purpose OS that does more than routing. I believe we value the contribution by Adara and you but at the same time want to integrate it into a bigger picture for the entire kernel. When you pull up your product to FreeBSD 11 in the future it should be easy to stack your functionality again on the new base infrastructure without many/any modifications. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52701F7E.2060604>