From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFBD13B29E for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 17:28:09 -0500 (EST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1546727258; bh=meTViPF5rOCcxgDi9XBKr5oUbP2uSfIYW3/1NQLUuXk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Us5gNP+V9wvRKdp1jfAccpgvpMONq4D37vsft+tZ7rNMK4i8diGnhFCVWTdTnG51B 0Q2oFv8c6g83GQwrELhQyuXD91Ow7iIuVmKJddKVEaERTbcbnyh9adqSML6WN0IZ+A KNpSyNABQAu61qAmsJSgRrM/NKeAqYnMj+KZITPD7sF7mXwOJ6yk9Tp83EoJcZKPhW 7gpS4LMigXzIpVJq4gt9ciH3y2JVhq+/i4T2TryzjzVZQnpbyzHBGj9kct4DuVi1X4 IN30fMYo2RL772muUAjriZ0TCA27yDBDYsp8wB+/qIkcme5nmDc2BaU+DlZAp7DtCQ BxkO/U0FsZgeg== To: Pete Heist Cc: Sebastian Moeller , Cake List In-Reply-To: <252DC221-7024-4834-9757-96335372A5A7@heistp.net> References: <5482A3CA-9C36-4DDE-A858-24D8467F70C7@heistp.net> <8736q8yumt.fsf@toke.dk> <4C422792-7E51-4DBA-A229-FA7D3F987FB6@heistp.net> <87zhsgxdao.fsf@toke.dk> <87wonjxvss.fsf@toke.dk> <0077CC34-490F-4D76-82D3-BE37B27F2E1C@heistp.net> <49A6DCF8-BE98-47F4-9C66-6B4288390A58@heistp.net> <87tvinxos7.fsf@toke.dk> <87r2drxnal.fsf@toke.dk> <45D43135-318B-48AD-B09B-69BBB034CE12@heistp.net> <87o98vxm57.fsf@toke.dk> <797FCC60-0048-4EF6-80BC-19707E9173FB@heistp.net> <87lg3zxdyr.fsf@toke.dk> <87imz2yiet.fsf@toke.dk> <252DC221-7024-4834-9757-96335372A5A7@heistp.net> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2019 23:27:33 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87ftu6yc2y.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cake] cake infinite loop(?) with hfsc on one-armed router X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2019 22:28:10 -0000 Pete Heist writes: >> On Jan 5, 2019, at 9:10 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: >>=20 >> Well, it's the same WARN_ON(), and if that patch had been applied, >> debugging our issue would have been a lot harder, I think. > > Yikes, this is what I mean. I=E2=80=99d rather suffer the warning than be > troubleshooting flaky behavior. That patch is applied in the latest > kernel, so hopefully it=E2=80=99s the right thing. Well, if it causes false positives, getting rid of it is probably worth it just to avoid spurious bug reports :) -Toke