On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:57:08 +0000
Harshit Mogalapalli <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Yes, you are correct.
>
> To match the convention mapping should be like this instead:
>
> State 3 ---> LOST_IN_BURST_PERIOD
> State 4 ---> LOST_IN_GAP_PERIOD
>
>
> Thanks,
> Harshit
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 9:42 PM
> To: Harshit Mogalapalli <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email protected]>; Cong Wang <[email protected]>; Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>; David S. Miller <[email protected]>; Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subject: [External] : Re: [PATCH] net: sched: sch_netem: Refactor code in 4-state loss generator
>
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 23:14:47 -0800
> Harshit Mogalapalli <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Fixed comments to match description with variable names and
> > refactored code to match the convention as per [1].
> > [1] S. Salsano, F. Ludovici, A. Ordine, "Definition of a general
> > and intuitive loss model for packet networks and its implementation
> > in the Netem module in the Linux kernel"
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Harshit Mogalapalli <[email protected]>
>
> I wonder if this was changed accidently by this commit
> Commit: a6e2fe17eba4 ("sch_netem: replace magic numbers with enumerate")
>
Could you resend with updated commit message and Fixes tag?