Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 01:21:00PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Jarod Wilson > Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:14:53 -0500 > > > # ethtool -S bond0 > > no stats available > > ethtool -S is for device specific stats. Okay, good, that was what it looked like to me. Glad I'm not completely lost

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 01:24:59PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 07:23:09AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:11 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > >> > >> > --- > >> > net/core/dev.c | 3 +++ > >> >

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 07:23:09AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:11 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: >> >> > --- >> > net/core/dev.c | 3 +++ >> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> > >> > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

From: Jarod Wilson Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:14:53 -0500 > # ethtool -S bond0 > no stats available ethtool -S is for device specific stats. Some drivers use this facility to provide per-RX-queue and per-TX-queue versions of the existing core netdev stats.

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 07:23:09AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:11 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > > --- > > net/core/dev.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > > index 8cba3d8..1354c7b 100644 > > ---

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 07:23:09AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:11 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > > --- > > net/core/dev.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > > index 8cba3d8..1354c7b 100644 > > ---

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

From: Jarod Wilson Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:14:53 -0500 > # ethtool -S bond0 > no stats available ethtool -S is for device specific stats. Some drivers use this facility to provide per-RX-queue and per-TX-queue versions of the existing core netdev stats.

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 07:23:09AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:11 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: >> >> > --- >> > net/core/dev.c | 3 +++ >> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> > >> > diff --git

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 01:24:59PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 07:23:09AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:11 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > >> > >> > --- > >> >

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 01:21:00PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Jarod Wilson > Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:14:53 -0500 > > > # ethtool -S bond0 > > no stats available > > ethtool -S is for device specific stats. Okay, good, that was what it looked like to me. Glad I'm not

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:27:20AM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:42:22PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > > From: Jarod Wilson > > Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:11:22 -0500 > > > > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > > > index 8cba3d8..1354c7b 100644 > > > ---

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:42:22PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Jarod Wilson > Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:11:22 -0500 > > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > > index 8cba3d8..1354c7b 100644 > > --- a/net/core/dev.c > > +++ b/net/core/dev.c > > @@ -4153,8 +4153,11 @@ ncls: > >

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:27:20AM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:42:22PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > > From: Jarod Wilson > > Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:11:22 -0500 > > > > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > > > index 8cba3d8..1354c7b

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:42:22PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Jarod Wilson > Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:11:22 -0500 > > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > > index 8cba3d8..1354c7b 100644 > > --- a/net/core/dev.c > > +++ b/net/core/dev.c > > @@ -4153,8

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

From: Jarod Wilson Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:11:22 -0500 > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > index 8cba3d8..1354c7b 100644 > --- a/net/core/dev.c > +++ b/net/core/dev.c > @@ -4153,8 +4153,11 @@ ncls: > else > ret = pt_prev->func(skb, skb->dev,

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

From: Jarod Wilson Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:11:22 -0500 > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > index 8cba3d8..1354c7b 100644 > --- a/net/core/dev.c > +++ b/net/core/dev.c > @@ -4153,8 +4153,11 @@ ncls: > else > ret =

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:11 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > --- > net/core/dev.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > index 8cba3d8..1354c7b 100644 > --- a/net/core/dev.c > +++ b/net/core/dev.c > @@ -4153,8 +4153,11 @@ ncls: >

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:11:22PM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > The network core tries to keep track of dropped packets, but some packets > you wouldn't really call dropped, so much as intentionally ignored, under > certain circumstances. One such case is that of bonding and team device > slaves

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 09:59:12PM CET, jay.vosbu...@canonical.com wrote: >Jarod Wilson wrote: > >>The network core tries to keep track of dropped packets, but some packets >>you wouldn't really call dropped, so much as intentionally ignored, under >>certain circumstances. One such case is that of

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 08:11:22PM CET, ja...@redhat.com wrote: >The network core tries to keep track of dropped packets, but some packets >you wouldn't really call dropped, so much as intentionally ignored, under >certain circumstances. One such case is that of bonding and team device >slaves that

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 09:59:12PM CET, jay.vosbu...@canonical.com wrote: >Jarod Wilson wrote: > >>The network core tries to keep track of dropped packets, but some packets >>you wouldn't really call dropped, so much as intentionally ignored, under >>certain circumstances. One such

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 08:11:22PM CET, ja...@redhat.com wrote: >The network core tries to keep track of dropped packets, but some packets >you wouldn't really call dropped, so much as intentionally ignored, under >certain circumstances. One such case is that of bonding and team device >slaves that

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:11 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > --- > net/core/dev.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > index 8cba3d8..1354c7b 100644 > --- a/net/core/dev.c > +++ b/net/core/dev.c > @@ -4153,8 +4153,11 @@ ncls: >

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:11:22PM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > The network core tries to keep track of dropped packets, but some packets > you wouldn't really call dropped, so much as intentionally ignored, under > certain circumstances. One such case is that of bonding and team device > slaves

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

Jarod Wilson wrote: >The network core tries to keep track of dropped packets, but some packets >you wouldn't really call dropped, so much as intentionally ignored, under >certain circumstances. One such case is that of bonding and team device >slaves that are currently inactive. Their respective

[RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

The network core tries to keep track of dropped packets, but some packets you wouldn't really call dropped, so much as intentionally ignored, under certain circumstances. One such case is that of bonding and team device slaves that are currently inactive. Their respective rx_handler functions

Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

Jarod Wilson wrote: >The network core tries to keep track of dropped packets, but some packets >you wouldn't really call dropped, so much as intentionally ignored, under >certain circumstances. One such case is that of bonding and team device >slaves that are currently

[RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive slaves

The network core tries to keep track of dropped packets, but some packets you wouldn't really call dropped, so much as intentionally ignored, under certain circumstances. One such case is that of bonding and team device slaves that are currently inactive. Their respective rx_handler functions