[LARTC] RE: [PATCH 0/2] NET: Accurate packet scheduling for ATM/ADSL

[Russell Stuart]

On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 10:13 -0400, jamal wrote:
> And yes, I was arguing that the tc scheme you describe would not be so
> bad either if the cost of making a generic change is expensive.
<snip>
> Patrick seems to have a simple way to compensate generically for link
> layer fragmentation, so i will not argue the practically; hopefully that
> settles it? ;->

Things seem to have died down.  Patrick's patch seemed 
unrelated to ATM to me.  I did put up another suggestion, 
but I don't think anybody was too impressed with the 
idea.  So that leave the current ATM patch as the only 
one we have on the table that addresses the ATM issue.

Since you don't think it is "too bad", can we proceed 
with it?