From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (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 75A6F21F5DA for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 11:14:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by oifu63 with SMTP id u63so14935348oif.2 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 11:14:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dJxwvXu8mMs5vZZr27KXMU7AFDqvFIbKC95e4xRyqJQ=; b=s+5ML+XVQLJsiFpAaiUT3EQ4izK/tzZn7RUDq9aa/xzdNTUTbV73r/q+E6BA1dy+2o oc1QDqDP+WIIIo+UG/7d2p3SI2X7usq3XWv6hutzimnguHr+7gG4I1LTt98+ZPY7P5op FLXpR6pBj4/qW68wYM6ECxmxSEf2/8dDPNvmZH/j904ngbwKxCthpDJ/29J/06oYzwkV AJbY0WtMGrlaWXvy0a8k0C9Izem5NSIixJMS1GOemzjFG7Eo09AOZAcxQRT6iuGNtjRZ vSoL+XYmzXltNtzcJjMfRQSJt/hXPMEFVZ+hYaMmjUI/Fji+FPp1gPq4fznsa3tqVt/J vzEA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.187.193 with SMTP id l184mr13396972oif.110.1446578089130; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 11:14:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.61.133 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 11:14:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87pozqaomi.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87oafbnsqn.fsf@toke.dk> <5638B29D.9020503@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> <87k2pzns29.fsf@toke.dk> <6F28B0F0-8333-4753-802E-BDDAC42CBC7B@gmail.com> <87oafbat54.fsf@toke.dk> <877flzas49.fsf@toke.dk> <87pozqaomi.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:14:49 -0500 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cake] Correct 'change' behaviour 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 19:15:12 -0000 in the general case, I recomend looking at the most current fq_codel code to see how to do it as right as possible. There were several bugs found and fixed in it as well.... Dave T=C3=A4ht I just invested five years of my life to making wifi better. And, now... the FCC wants to make my work, illegal for people to install. https://www.gofundme.com/savewifi On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: > Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen writes: > >> as best I can follow the logic in that function, it *should* actually >> get recreated when those flags are set. >> >> So why on earth are the values wrong? Memory initialisation problem? > > Well, instrumenting cake with some good old-fashioned printk debug > statements, it appears that a replace when it's already in place does in > fact only call cake_change, and not cake_destroy followed by cake_init. > > Now *why* that is I'm not entirely sure... > > -Toke > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake