David Miller said the following on 2007-11-21 9:39: > From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:05:18 +0100 > >> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:29:45AM -0500, Bill Fink wrote: >>> While I agree with your analysis that it could be worked around, >>> who knows how all the various SNMP monitoring applications out there >>> would interpret such an unusual event. I liked Stephen's suggestion >>> of a deferred decrement that would insure the counter didn't ever >>> run backwards. But the best approach seems to be just not to count >>> it in the first place until tha application has actually received >>> the packet, since as Herbert pointed out, that's what the RFC >>> actually specifies for the meaning of the udpInDatagrams counter. >> Together with another counter that counts "edge datagrams received" >> that would be an excellent idea. >> >> Here's a patch. > > NFS and friends that use the ->data_ready() callback needs to > be updated as well. Please fix this and resubmit, thanks. >
I tested nfsv3 & nfsv4. It seems that nfs calls recvmsg() like following:nfsd()->svc_recv()->svc_udp_recvfrom()->udp_recvmsg(). So, I think putting the udpInDatagrams increment in udp_recvmsg() is enough. FYI: http://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg13817.html - 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
