> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 2:44 PM > To: Tahhan, Maryam <maryam.tahhan at intel.com>; David Harton > (dharton) <dharton at cisco.com> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; olivier.matz at 6wind.com; Van Haaren, Harry > <harry.van.haaren at intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Future Direction for rte_eth_stats_get() > > 2016-01-22 14:18, Tahhan, Maryam: > > So what can be enabled again in struct rte_eth_stats from what was > already there is the equivalent of: > > * rx_length_errors > > * rx_crc_errors > > * rx_missed_errors - the deprecation notice was removed for this > field. > > * multicast > > > > What should be added in to distinguish between errors and drops. > struct rte_eth_stats : > > * rx_errors > > * tx_errors > > > > As for the detailed rx errors and tx errors I'm open to feedback from > you folks as to what should go in and what is too detailed. These > weren't in struct rte_eth_stats previously, they are available through > xstats and are uniformly named across the drivers. Oliver + Harry any > thoughts? > > > > David I assume you are looking for all the missing fields to be added? > > They are not missing. They just not exactly match ones having a long > history in Linux kernel. > Please let's avoid to blindly mimic others without thinking about > modern needs. >
My bad wording - I apologise, but I agree we should consider what makes sense and what doesn't. > > > > From: David Harton > > > > > Is there a reason the stats have been deprecated? Why not > keep > > > > > the stats in line with the standard linux practices such as > > > > > rtnl_link_stats64?
