There's HFSC QOS discipline in kernel. This one is not documented at all. There's no meaningful documentation over Internet as well. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. emerge iproute2 2. man tc-hfsc Actual Results: Error message: No manual entry for tc-hfsc Expected Results: Manual page shown
Created attachment 209265 [details, diff] This will add missing documentation to HFSC class The patch was adapted to current iproute2 extracted from today's git.
Created attachment 209268 [details, diff] Removed excessive .swp file
Created attachment 209270 [details, diff] Little fix to Makefile
post the exact git commit's (by their sha1 id) that you want imported
> post the exact git commit's (by their sha1 id) that you want imported What do you mean? The patch was made by me. It's applied fine on current iproute2 stable package.
your "little fix" contains a bunch of changes unrelated to documentation. if you arent taking the changes from upstream, then they need to be posted to the upstream mailing list.
Please check the header of the patch. A full description is in place. That's strange, you call one little fix to be "a bunch of changes": s->mtu = 2047; -> s->mtu = 2048; while ((s->mtu >> s->cell_log) > s->tsize - 1) -> while ((s->mtu - 1 >> s->cell_log) > s->tsize - 1) All other changes are documentation related. If you feel bad about that change to sources, just omit it (this fix was done by the author of documentation, you may see this if you read the header of the patch).
there is no "header of the patch" that indicates anything at all about who is making the changes or where you got them. you called the patch "little fix to makefile" when in reality it adds a man page, changes a makefile, makes undocumented changes to mtu values, and changes usage output in multiple files. i'm not throwing random patches into the tree without info on where they're coming from and why they're needed
Created attachment 211530 [details] The patch adds detailed documentation for HFSC scheduler The headers are back
(In reply to comment #8) > there is no "header of the patch" that indicates anything at all about who is > making the changes or where you got them. Sorry that was my mistake... Fixed in last attachment. > you called the patch "little fix to makefile" That was the description of the change (like Changelog entry) I made to previous patch.
thanks, that documented patch i'm happy to take. it's in 2.6.29.1-r3 now.
