From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965083AbcA1GKQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:10:16 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44398 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754843AbcA1GKO (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:10:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:10:13 -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: <20160128061012.GC59058@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> <20160128060215.GB59058@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160128060215.GB59058@redhat.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 Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:02:15AM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > 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? Also, please excuse the poor excuse for a cover-letter that had a duplicate of patch 1 in it. I'll fix that the next pass too. /me hangs head in shame... -- Jarod Wilson jarod@redhat.com