[LARTC] [PATCH] mark in u32

[gypsy]

gypsy wrote:
> 
> Thomas Graf wrote:
> >
> 
> > Would you guys like to see esfq included in mainline?
> 
> YES!!
> 
> gypsy

Thomas,

Let me rephrase that.

I can't think of any reason that SFQ should be maintained without the E
<grin>.  It makes very little sense to hard code parameters that the
user might wish or need to supply.  That's the reason for ESFQ.  When no
parameters are given, it _is_ SFQ; when there are parameters it complies
with ones wishes.

Name it what you like, but SFQ desperately needs to accept paramters,
and ESFQ should be the only SFQ.

gypsy