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++; } /* Hmmmmm, 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
