[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220225081212.4b1825f2@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 08:12:12 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
Cc: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <jiri@...dia.com>, <razor@...ckwall.org>,
<roopa@...dia.com>, <dsahern@...il.com>, <andrew@...n.ch>,
<mlxsw@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/14] net: dev: Add hardware stats support
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 09:31:23 +0100 Petr Machata wrote:
> >> + struct rtnl_link_stats64 *offload_xstats_l3;
> >
> > Does it make sense to stick to rtnl_link_stats64 for this?
> > There's a lot of.. historical baggage in that struct.
>
> It seemed like a reasonable default that every tool already understands.
>
> Was there a discussion in the past about what a cross-vendor stats suite
> should look like? It seems like one of those things that can be bikeshed
> forever...
What I meant is take out all the link-level / PHY stuff, I don't think
any HW would be reporting these above the physical port. Basically when
you look at struct rtnl_link_stats64 we can remove everything starting
from and including collisions, right?
And looking at your patch that'd leave exactly the stats you actually
use..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists