Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/5] Improve the taprio qdisc's relationship with its children

From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
	Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
	Muhammad Husaini Zulkifli <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@intel.com>,
	Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@gmail.com>,
	Pedro Tammela <pctammela@mojatatu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/5] Improve the taprio qdisc's relationship with its children
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 15:27:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZH3i1hxWOuynkbxk@corigine.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230605125042.lx6ng5jcsxp625ep@skbuf>

On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 03:50:42PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 01:37:45PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > [ Original patch set was lost due to an apparent transient problem with
> > kernel.org's DNSBL setup. This is an identical resend. ]
> > 
> > Prompted by Vinicius' request to consolidate some child Qdisc
> > dereferences in taprio:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/87edmxv7x2.fsf@intel.com/
> > 
> > I remembered that I had left some unfinished work in this Qdisc, namely
> > commit af7b29b1deaa ("Revert "net/sched: taprio: make qdisc_leaf() see
> > the per-netdev-queue pfifo child qdiscs"").
> > 
> > This patch set represents another stab at, essentially, what's in the
> > title. Not only does taprio not properly detect when it's grafted as a
> > non-root qdisc, but it also returns incorrect per-class stats.
> > Eventually, Vinicius' request is addressed too, although in a different
> > form than the one he requested (which was purely cosmetic).
> > 
> > Review from people more experienced with Qdiscs than me would be
> > appreciated. I tried my best to explain what I consider to be problems.
> > I am deliberately targeting net-next because the changes are too
> > invasive for net - they were reverted from stable once already.
> 
> I noticed that this patch set has "Changes Requested" in patchwork.
> 
> I can't completely exclude the fact that maybe someone has requested
> some changes to be made, but there is no email in my inbox to that end,
> and for that matter, neither did patchwork or the email archive process
> any responses to this thread.

I concur. Let's see if this sets set it to "Under Review".

-- 
pw-bot: under-review