On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:38:09 -0400
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Looking at http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8106
Guys, could we please have a ruling here?
When a net driver encounters a tx_fifo_error, should this also contribute
to the tx_error count, or should it not?
For each TX error, (a) tx_error is incremented and (b) a more-specific
TX error stat is also potentially incremented. So, yes, tx_error
accumulates.
See cp_tx() in 8139cp.
More generally, should netdev drivers accumulate all the detailed
rx_errors into net_device_stats.rx_errors in real time, or should they not?
For each RX error, (a) rx_error is incremented and (b) a more-specific
RX error stat is also potentially incremented. So, yes, rx_error
accumulates.
See cp_rx_err_acct() in 8139cp.
OK, thanks.
One does wonder why the overall rx_error exists all all, but whatever. The
main thing is to get all the net drivers doing the same thing.
So I guess bug 8106 wants something like this?
diff -puN drivers/net/natsemi.c~a drivers/net/natsemi.c
--- a/drivers/net/natsemi.c~a
+++ a/drivers/net/natsemi.c
@@ -2438,13 +2438,16 @@ static void netdev_error(struct net_devi
dev-name);
}
np-stats.rx_fifo_errors++;
+ np-stats.rx_errors++;
}
/* Hm, it's not clear how to recover from PCI faults. */
if (intr_status IntrPCIErr) {
printk(KERN_NOTICE %s: PCI error %#08x\n, dev-name,
intr_status IntrPCIErr);
np-stats.tx_fifo_errors++;
+ np-stats.tx_errors++;
np-stats.rx_fifo_errors++;
+ np-stats.rx_errors++;
}
spin_unlock(np-lock);
}
_
-
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
