On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:43:51PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:30:47 -0500 > > From: Brad Smith <[email protected]> > > > > > Index: arch/socppc/dev/if_tsec.c > > > =================================================================== > > > RCS file: /home/cvs/src/sys/arch/socppc/dev/if_tsec.c,v > > > retrieving revision 1.29 > > > diff -u -p -u -p -r1.29 if_tsec.c > > > --- arch/socppc/dev/if_tsec.c 29 Nov 2012 21:10:31 -0000 1.29 > > > +++ arch/socppc/dev/if_tsec.c 28 Jan 2014 05:16:24 -0000 > > > @@ -779,7 +779,6 @@ tsec_errintr(void *arg) > > > */ > > > tsec_rx_proc(sc); > > > tsec_write(sc, TSEC_RSTAT, TSEC_RSTAT_QHLT); > > > - ifp->if_ierrors++; > > > } > > > > > > return (1); > > > This one doesn't seem right. This is the only place where the driver > actually increases if_ierrors.
Being the only place input errors are incremented is irrelevant. Its being incremented because the particular "error" is a FIFO overrun. > I also still fundamentally disagree with the direction. I you guys > really want to make a distinction between packets dropped because > we're out of descriptors and packets that were not correctly received > for other reasons, add a counter for that first and then change the > drivers. I don't necessarily disagree with what you have said. I think we should have some additional counters to deal with some of the counters we are lumping into error counters. Since we can't seem to come to any consensus about how to deal with this I'm going to revert the bge(4) commit in question. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
