[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c9e5c051-b8b8-6319-cde9-41165ad8b37e@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:46:06 -0800
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, dsahern@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
cphealy@...il.com, andrew@...n.ch, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com,
decot@...glers.com, jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
daniel@...earbox.net, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com, ast@...com,
roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, vyasevich@...il.com, jonas@...thpole.se,
maheshb@...gle.com, stephen@...workplumber.org,
ishkamiel@...il.com, fw@...len.de, arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com,
avagin@...nvz.org, mingo@...nel.org, lucien.xin@...il.com,
mschiffer@...verse-factory.net, jbenc@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: core: Expose number of link up/down
transitions
On 01/22/2018 12:43 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 09:59:13 -0800
>
>> From: David Decotigny <decot@...glers.com>
>>
>> Expose the number of times the link has been going UP or DOWN, and
>> update the "carrier_changes" counter to be the sum of these two events.
>> While at it, also update the sysfs-class-net documentation to cover:
>> carrier_changes (3.15), carrier_up_count (4.16) and carrier_down_count
>> (4.16)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Decotigny <decot@...glers.com>
>> [Florian:
>> * rebase
>> * add documentation
>> * merge carrier_changes with up/down counters]
>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - fixed sysfs attributes to use <iface>
>> - renamed count_link_{up,down} to carrier_{up,down}_count to match
>> existing carrier_changes semantics
>
> Like David Ahern I am strongly against the proliferation of sysfs files
> attached to network devices and the per-netdevice costs associated with
> that.
>
> However, dealing with that is a longer term issue that nobody has a clear
> plan for. Therefore I cannot reject this change on that basis alone.
>
> The information is useful, so applied, thanks.
Thanks! David A, do you have any plans to revive your LWD/LWT devices
patches, AFAIR you were allowing a knob disabling the creation of sysfs
attributes.
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists