[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MWHPR11MB1693909B5E06A7791F0FD079EF159@MWHPR11MB1693.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 18:12:54 +0000
From: <Jerry.Ray@...rochip.com>
To: <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: <andrew@...n.ch>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>, <olteanv@...il.com>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v3] dsa: lan9303: Add 3 ethtool stats
>>> Why not add them there as well?
>>>
>>> Are these drops accounted for in any drop / error statistics within
>>> rtnl_link_stats?
>>>
>>> It's okay to provide implementation specific breakdown via ethtool -S
>>> but user must be able to notice that there are some drops / errors in
>>> the system by looking at standard stats.
>>
>> The idea here is to provide the statistics as documented in the part
>> datasheet. In the future, I'll be looking to add support for the stats64
>> API and will deal with appropriately sorting the available hardware stats
>> into the rtnl_link_stats buckets.
>
>Upstream we care about providing reasonably uniform experience across
>drivers and vendors. Because I don't know you and therefore don't trust
>you to follow up you must do the standard thing in the same patch set,
>pretty please.
>
Won't be able to get to stats64 this cycle. Looking to migrate to phylink
first. This is a pretty old driver.
Understand you don't know me - yet.
Regards,
Jerry.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists