[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170827204306.0fb98e31@cakuba>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 20:43:06 -0400
From: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
To: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Eugenia Emantayev <eugenia@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net/core: Add violation counters to VF
statisctics
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:06:17 +0300, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> From: Eugenia Emantayev <eugenia@...lanox.com>
>
> Add receive and transmit violation counters to be
> displayed in iproute2 VF statistics.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eugenia Emantayev <eugenia@...lanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
> ---
> include/linux/if_link.h | 2 ++
> include/uapi/linux/if_link.h | 2 ++
> net/core/rtnetlink.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/if_link.h b/include/linux/if_link.h
> index da70af27e42e..ebf3448acb5b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/if_link.h
> +++ b/include/linux/if_link.h
> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ struct ifla_vf_stats {
> __u64 tx_bytes;
> __u64 broadcast;
> __u64 multicast;
> + __u64 rx_dropped;
> + __u64 tx_dropped;
I'm a little concerned that you call those violation counters in the
commit message. Do you expect them to only be used if the VF traffic
indeed violates some admin-set rules? I would imaging HW/FW may drop
frames in certain situations and naming the counters *_dropped suggests
it would be OK to increment them even if the drop reason was not any
sort of violation. Would you mind clarifying?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists