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
