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

From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc: 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 15:50:42 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230605125042.lx6ng5jcsxp625ep@skbuf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230602103750.2290132-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

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.