On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 09:51 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > 2014-03-27 23:25 GMT-07:00 Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us>: > > > > If this is exposed in sysfs, this needs to be exposed via RT netlink as > > well. > > This makes me wonder if this really needs to be a kernel-maintained > pair of counters. Since this seems to be useful for monitoring e.g: > servers for link flapping, I would assume that some user-space > script/program does read these sysfs entries periodically to report a > healthy link. If that's the case, what prevents the same > script/program from listening to netlink events and count the link > UP/DOWN events from there and report that?
The same would be true for any counter in networking stack... I do not feel we need to have a daemon running to 'count' events. I like being able to run "ip -s link" , "ifconfig -a" or "nstat -a" without having to connect to a daemon. This daemon will likely have different api / constraints from distro to distro. To me, first thing is a counter, then eventually events for daemons. drop_monitor could eventually disappear if we had counters everywhere we need them. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
