From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964873AbcA1GCT (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:02:19 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49554 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754465AbcA1GCR (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:02:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:02:15 -0500 From: Jarod Wilson To: Eric Dumazet Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jiri Pirko , Daniel Borkmann , Tom Herbert , Jay Vosburgh , Veaceslav Falico , Andy Gospodarek , netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/4] net: add rx_unhandled stat counter Message-ID: <20160128060215.GB59058@redhat.com> References: <1453489882-57948-1-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> <1453926098-40181-1-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> <1453928987.20722.29.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1453928987.20722.29.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 01:09:47PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 15:21 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > > diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h > > index 289c231..7973ab5 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h > > +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h > > @@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ struct net_device_stats { > > unsigned long tx_window_errors; > > unsigned long rx_compressed; > > unsigned long tx_compressed; > > + unsigned long rx_unhandled; > > }; > > > > This structure is deprecated, please do not add new fields in it, > as it will increase netlink answers for no good reason. > > rtnl_link_stats64 is what really matters these days. I'll respin the set without that, along with s/unhandled/nohandler/, which I somehow got screwed up in my head and realized a split second after hitting send. Outside of that, does this approach look sane? Should I bother with touching /proc/net/dev output or not? Thanks much, -- Jarod Wilson jarod@redhat.com