From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:29:33 +0100
> > > > > > > > All of our options suck, we just have to choose the least sucking one > > > > and right now to me that's decrementing the counter as much as I > > > > empathize with the SNMP application overflow detection issue. > > > > > > If the SNMP monitor detects an false overflow the error it reports > > > will be much worse than a single missing packet. So you would replace > > > one error with a worse error. > > > > This can be fixed, the above cannot. > > I don't see how, short of breaking the interface > (e.g. reporting 64bit or separate overflow counts) As someone who just spent an entire weekend working on cpu performance counter code, I know it's possible. When you overflow, the new value is "a lot" less than the last sampled one. When the value backtracks like we're discussing it could here, it only decrease a very little bit. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
