From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x22f.google.com (mail-ob0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::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 5722A21F646; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 05:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obpn3 with SMTP id n3so6570643obp.0; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 05:48:45 -0700 (PDT) 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=yKDoXW0rTlf2zU8plCuo1MGMSJwJqitSwwOoaOzlXdo=; b=zoBL4LKLJIKUwDGKbNCLUe/sAz2RsxvPjJP7RC4LsXd3eMzNGnOIzAGfBU1JOHniCF iXhbTPb+ffSfPkUDaoxrwirpJnP6gaKYtd78twP39GkRizbI34EgVKMyCDAfc1h2HGJq 60iR3PfgJ9c5eUEh7LFjDoFq4oHaMhPamCXMIE8WKZhgTONz01maXuuNqEB+9AIOAocF GZJ6LBYfiJ9IssBh7tn1aYddhi/QlkoPd2az/fOuijHOKISX1odYQVG9mZJeG6bssw9+ GeUW/0y4SC14PpncEpnF76ZnObSaTNpQ+BAvh/35AO2mCosOvm6d1tjvu1DEDFBDmJLQ Tsng== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.246.9 with SMTP id xs9mr17455236obc.45.1434804525140; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 05:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.105.129 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 05:48:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5585545B.6040108@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 05:48:45 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Jonathan Morton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net, cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Cake] Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" [still] didn't 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: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:49:14 -0000 huh? I pulled from the repo you were committing to, I thought.... is that not correct? I can do a build of a newer cake... before I get on the plane... On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Jonathan Morton wr= ote: > It looks like your cake is new enough to support set associative hashing, > but not the new overhead handling. The ATM flag was put in a long time ag= o. > > Looking at the code which grabs those options (cake_change), there doesn'= t > seem to be a way to detect whether an unsupported option was provided by > userspace, unless nla_parse_nested returns an error if the provided optio= n > struct would be overflowed. Clearly it doesn't, but just truncates it to > fit. > > - Jonathan Morton --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht worldwide bufferbloat report: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat And: What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast