From: Alexandr Nedvedicky <sashan@fastmail.net>
Subject: Re: fq_codel: align with RFC 8289 and RFC 8290 (1/2)
To: Bjorn Ketelaars <bket@openbsd.org>
Cc: tech@openbsd.org, mikeb@openbsd.org
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2025 13:22:20 +0100

Hello,

tb@ reminded me about your diffs. I've never touched the code you are changing,
so I hope my OK counts here.

On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 08:26:46PM +0100, Bjorn Ketelaars wrote:
> Diff below updates CoDel and FQ-CoDel implementation to align with the
> finalized RFCs. This is the first of two commits focusing on RFC
> compliance.
>     
> Changes:
> - Update references from IETF drafts to RFC 8289 (CoDel) and RFC 8290
>   (FQ-CoDel)
> - Fix target calculation: use interval/20 instead of interval/5 to match
>   RFC 8289 section 4.3 (5% of interval)
> - Add grace period field to codel_params structure, initialized to 16 *
>   interval as per RFC 8289 section 5.5 (replaces hardcoded codel_grace
>   constant)
> - Simplify delta reuse logic in drop control: flatten nested if
>   condition
> - Switch from hardcoded fqcodel_qlimit to user-defined fqc->qlimit for
>   queue limit checks
> - Code style improvements throughout:
>     - Fix function prototype formatting (codel_purge,
>       fqcodel_pf_enqueue, fqcodel_pf_deq_begin)
>     - Fix whitespace and alignment in struct definitions
>     - Fix pointer declaration spacing (const placement)
>     - Fix loop indentation alignment
> 
> No functional changes to the core algorithm behaviour.

    I agree the diff matches description above. the changes make sense
    to me and match RFC. So I would say this should go in.

OK sashan