On 31 December 2013 09:46, Brad Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31/12/13 3:14 AM, Mark Kettenis wrote: >>> >>> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 01:28:04 -0500 >>> From: Brad Smith <[email protected]> >>> >>> Don't count RX overruns and missed packets as inputs errors. They're >>> expected to increment when using MCLGETI. >>> >>> OK? >> >> >> These may be "expected", but they're still packets that were not >> received. And it is useful to know about these, for example when >> debugging TCP performance issues. > > > Well do we want to keep just the missed packets or both? Part of the > diff was inspired by this commit when I was looking at what counters > were incrementing.. > > for bge(4).. > > revision 1.334 > date: 2013/06/06 00:05:30; author: dlg; state: Exp; lines: +2 -4; > dont count rx ring overruns as input errors. with MCLGETI controlling the > ring we expect to run out of rx descriptors as a matter of course, its not > an error. > > ok mikeb@ > >
it does screws up statistics big time. does mpc counter follow rx_overruns? why did we add them up both previously?
