[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d0383f90807010650y1762e0an52b3f8d44a8af33f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:50:03 +0300
From: "Ian Brown" <ianbrn@...il.com>
To: "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] UDP SndbufErrors interface and the /proc/net/udp interface.
Hello,
>That might be overriden by a very clear use case.
What I had in mind is this:
This can help in debugging problems.
I have a machine which works with many UDP sockets. After some hours
(sometimes days), there are problems ; some of them might be due to
that UDP packets are not sent. I want to know stats per UDP port so
that I will know for each socket how many packets were not sent; in
current implementation, I can only know the total of these packets,
and not per port (by probing into the /proc/net/snmp stats)
Regards,
Ian
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> "Ian Brown" <ianbrn@...il.com> writes:
>>
>> I wonder: would such a patch (form me or others) in needed ? Or will
>> it be rejected because this idea is not good ?
>> In case this idea is not good, I wonder what is the reason for it.
>
> One possible reason against it is that struct sock size is relatively
> critical for memory consumption and there's usually some resistance
> against adding more fields for it.
>
> That might be overriden by a very clear use case.
>
> -Andi
>
>
--
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