From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D856221F2C3 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 12:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hms-beagle.home.lan ([87.164.165.7]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LjdS8-1ZEs7c2mBk-00beVk; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 21:45:28 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <90F78D21-4FE5-46F6-B96D-2E00FB373E71@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 21:45:26 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <621729A8-E1F6-4AAD-AA99-C5B84B46E034@gmx.de> <90F78D21-4FE5-46F6-B96D-2E00FB373E71@gmail.com> To: Jonathan Morton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:xYeS0L9eEO/DBr8U+uV3VlCvOkAYIVQMD1IMwKluHkM1V6jrbu4 gopDqdJ6yy9sTaIEakxWVbI9KOB77B+QlFjFPx7K8cTV5ALeEf3XqOrnaOsmpdJVMYCtWaz +uUWxYRaNxo8weqquOGLUSowM5LnNnBU2+vMXvxAipaYGcXN39dNZqK+faS1IeQdZlNm2ZB vbN3DjNJXUclbhwX4X+EA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cake] #17 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: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:46:01 -0000 Hi Jonathan, On Apr 13, 2015, at 19:06 , Jonathan Morton = wrote: >=20 >> On 13 Apr, 2015, at 17:59, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >>=20 >> I wonder could cake use = http://lxr.free-electrons.com/ident?i=3Dskb_flow_dissect to get the = inputs for the hash function? >=20 > It already does, just like fq_codel. This is great! Does skb_fow_dissect also allow access to the TOS = bits? Currently in sqm-scripts we =93manually=94 extract the TOS bits = wit a different set of tc filters for each encapsulation and protocol, = given the cost of the fi;ted operation this sucks; it would be sweet if = this could be made cheap enough to not care anymore. Again this might = already be implemented ;) Best Regards Sebastian >=20 > - Jonathan Morton >=20