[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071024.125925.86627480.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:59:25 +0900 (JST)
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
To: nakam@...ux-ipv6.org
Cc: hadi@...erus.ca, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3][XFRM]: Support packet processing error
statistics.
In article <200710231608.34661.nakam@...ux-ipv6.org> (at Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:08:34 +0900), Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@...ux-ipv6.org> says:
> Monday 22 October 2007 21:28, jamal wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-22-10 at 15:11 +0900, Masahide NAKAMURA wrote:
:
> This point is one of what I want to hear comment.
> My patch uses "XFRM_MIB_XXX" because I found "LINUX_MIB_XXX" definition at
> include/linux/snmp.h for TCP extended statistics at /proc/net/netstat and
> it does not seem to be defined by any RFC specification. Then I feel it is not so bad to
> use _MIB_ for them. Maybe we have another idea to merge them into LINUX_MIB.
>
> Now we have the following candidates:
>
> (1) my patch XFRM_MIB_INHDRERROR
> (2) some extender XFRM_XXX_INHDRERROR (XXX is requested)
> (3) not-mib extender XFRM_NOTMIB_INHDRERROR
> (4) no extender XFRM_INHDRERROR
> (5) merge linux-mib LINUX_MIB_XFRMINHDRERROR
>
> Comments?
I would support (5) or (1).
--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists