From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EA4521F4E7 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 00:25:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by lfgh9 with SMTP id h9so8979398lfg.1 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:25:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=uZ3x+4bvWw0k8vtYre5Nbx3rJc4xwsccP+qQ69mZkag=; b=KpusEyYYWG1WNCOhPNM9CYincPYGHkbuhqpeHB85p7ChVB/5Ko/CbmUB6AxPMHj5LZ y7GXz3ZcBdlPX/XmdedcuaMtJ0sccuqtCIjv00Ju7O8LO5Lsab9CuZ5o6HeffH7JGgQO IXxixhiOBpJ0OgEjipPyTSpZWyRpq1ZfnuY2/d15UiYJ0BAh+psthazswYpLlxNANcKU 6S/IC5m50IQ2p4x1FQzDOXaS6KB2YmfZoMjs1+un6MHEYcFhSVDjdLGje/plCK5jLtYf UAeUmJSa90JwE49IOOcquNHXjFVv6kMhZ1sHa2xlg4onz/owwCfxKjTZ9rJkSq4kmF2H 0fCg== X-Received: by 10.112.190.35 with SMTP id gn3mr12087228lbc.96.1446539120358; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:25:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from bass.home.chromatix.fi (83-245-237-115-nat-p.elisa-mobile.fi. [83.245.237.115]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l8sm4580479lbj.7.2015.11.03.00.25.19 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:25:19 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:25:17 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <87pozspckj.fsf@toke.dk> <6A2609D9-7747-487B-9484-ECC69C50DE96@gmx.de> To: Sebastian Moeller X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5) Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cake] Long-RTT broken again X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:25:45 -0000 > On 3 Nov, 2015, at 10:20, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >=20 > Also what about the BUG_ON I managed to trigger during my testing? That turned out to be a flawed condition, which I=92ve already fixed. = It=92s necessary for something like that to be there, because there is a = fixed, static allocation of tins; exceeding that number would result in = a buffer overflow. The only way to do so is to add a new Diffserv = scheme with more than eight tins, which isn=92t outside the bounds of = possibility in the future, though unlikely in the short term. - Jonathan Morton