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 wrot
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 mailto:ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org>> wrote:
Please, no Camel casemaybe we can duplicate the struct with names and
use convenient one.
So we adopt a stand
On 15.10.15 19:31, Mike Holmes wrote:
On 15 October 2015 at 14:04, Ivan Khoronzhuk mailto:ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org>> wrote:
Please, no Camel casemaybe 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 n
On 15 October 2015 at 14:04, Ivan Khoronzhuk
wrote:
> Please, no Camel casemaybe 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 :)
>
>
> On 15.10.15 15:12, Mike Holme
Please, no Camel casemaybe we can duplicate the struct with names and use
convenient one.
On 15.10.15 15:12, Mike Holmes wrote:
On 15 October 2015 at 13:01, Bill Fischofer mailto:bill.fischo...@linaro.org>> wrote:
If we're going to follow RFC MIB specifications we should use the fie
: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo); lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [lng-odp] pktio statistic counters
On 15 October 2015 at 13:01, Bill Fischofer 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 updat
On 15 October 2015 at 13:01, Bill Fischofer
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
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.
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/inf
