Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Tue, 20 May 2003 01:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pizda.ninka.net (IDENT:root@pizda.ninka.net [216.101.162.242])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h4K8Te2x024105
	for <netdev@oss.sgi.com>; Tue, 20 May 2003 01:29:40 -0700
Received: from localhost (IDENT:davem@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by pizda.ninka.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07829;
	Tue, 20 May 2003 01:28:24 -0700
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 01:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20030520.012824.85398613.davem@redhat.com>
To: Eric.Lemoine@Sun.COM
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: simple change to qdisc_restart()
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030520082217.GC978@udine>
References: <20030520082217.GC978@udine>
X-FalunGong: Information control.
X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 2591
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
X-original-sender: davem@redhat.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: netdev

   From: Eric Lemoine <Eric.Lemoine@Sun.COM>
   Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:22:17 +0200
   
   Any comments regarding the following patch?

I understand why it is valid, etc., but why do we even want to do
this?  It is not like this dead-loop detection stuff is a hot-path or
anything like that.