[Click] Unqueue modification

[Eddie Kohler]

Hi Lorenzo,

No, this change seems perfectly reasonable.  And in fact I'm going to check it 
in to mainline.  However the only reason you had this problem was that you set 
a large BURST value -- you could also just leave BURST at 1, the default.

Eddie


Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I am using Click in kernel module to implement a system where a given node manages the transmission of N other nodes.In particular, in the node configuration, to stop and to restart the packet transmission I am using an unqueue element which is activated and deactivated by another element. I have noticed when I unschedule the unqueue task (setting the unqueue class attribute _active to false), the element continues to pull/push packets until it reaches the _burst threshold. In order to render the unqueue element more responsive when it has been unscheduled, I have modified in this way the run_task class member function (I have highlighted in red the modification):
> 
> bool
> 
> Unqueue::run_task(Task *)
> {
>     if(!_active)
>         return false;
> 
>     int worked = 0;
>     while ((worked < _burst) && _active) {
>         if (Packet *p = input(0).pull()) {
>             worked++;
>             output(0).push(p);
>         } else {
>             if(!_signal) {
>                 _count += worked;
>                 return worked > 0;
>             }
>             break;
>         }
>        }
>         
>        _task.fast_reschedule();
>         _count += worked; 
>       return worked > 0;
> }
> 
> Do you think it is correct or maybe it could trigger problems??
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Lorenzo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> click mailing list
> click at amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu
> https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click