I will send update.

btw, smnpd does not name variables with same name as counters, we should not do the same. Just correlation between standard and vars name.

Maxim.

On 10/15/2015 19:53, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:


On 15.10.15 19:51, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:


On 15.10.15 19:31, Mike Holmes wrote:


On 15 October 2015 at 14:04, Ivan Khoronzhuk <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Please, no Camel case....maybe we can duplicate the struct with names and use convenient one.



So we adopt a standard that is bigger than out own and not its naming convention ?
Feels presumptuous :)

Yep.

Yep - Feels presumptuous :)





    On 15.10.15 15:12, Mike Holmes wrote:



On 15 October 2015 at 13:01, Bill Fischofer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:

If we're going to follow RFC MIB specifications we should use the field names as specified in the RFCs. We already need to update the checkpatch rules to allow camel case since CUnit uses that anyway. We can simply have a recommendation that ODP doesn't use camel case except in cases like these. It actually helps highlight the fact that these are externally specified names rather than ODP names.


Agree on using RFC names and I think checkpatch already ignores "MiB", but a patch to add Cunit exceptions is a good idea


             Bill

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:

                 Hi,

These RFCs could be the ones we are looking for pktio interface level counters.

        https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3635
        https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2863
        https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2819


The editor tool can be used to double check which RFC is the lastest...
        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3635
        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863


The counters could be these, but in 64 bit version in ODP API.

                 For example, ifInOctets would be specified as

                 typedef struct {
                    uint64_t in_octets;
                    uint64_t in_ucastpkts;
                 ...

                 } odp_pktio_stat_counters_t;



                 ifInOctets
                 ifInUcastPkts
                 ifInDiscards
                 ifInErrors
                 ifInUnknownProtos
                 ifOutOctets
                 ifOutUcastPkts
                 ifOutDiscards
                 ifOutErrors


ifInOctets The number of octets in valid MAC frames received on this interface, including the MAC header and FCS. This does include the number of octets in valid MAC Control frames received on this
                                                  Interface


ifInUcastPkts Refer to [RFC2863]. Note that this does not include MAC Control frames

                 ...


                 -Petri






_______________________________________________
                 lng-odp mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
        https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp



             _______________________________________________
             lng-odp mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
        https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp




        --
        Mike Holmes
        Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group
Linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/>***│ *Open source software for ARM SoCs

        __




        _______________________________________________
        lng-odp mailing list
        [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
        https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp


    --
    Regards,
    Ivan Khoronzhuk




--
Mike Holmes
Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group
Linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/>***│ *Open source software for ARM SoCs

__





_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp

Reply via email to