netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: cadence: macb: Report standard stats

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250215084054.09f12b7a@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 08:40:54 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>, Nicolas Ferre
 <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>, Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: cadence: macb: Report standard stats

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 00:14:35 +0100 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> Could we maybe have one central table which drivers share? I assume
> IETF defined these bands as part or RMON?

IIRC RMON standardizes these three:

        {    0,    64 },
        {   65,   127 },
        {  128,   255 },
        {  256,   511 },
        {  512,  1023 },
        { 1024,  1518 },

Once we get into jumbo (as you probably noticed) the tables start 
to diverge, mostly because max MTU is different.

On one hand common code is nice, on the other I don't think defining
this table has ever been a source of confusion, and common table won't
buy users anything. But, would be yet another thing we have to check
in review, no?