From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IPV4] UDP: Always checksum even if without socket filter Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:29:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20071119152933.GA19126@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20071117.160926.232024605.davem@davemloft.net> <20071118214515.GA8161@one.firstfloor.org> <20071118.144010.236028466.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: andi@firstfloor.org, wangchen@cn.fujitsu.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:35982 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753835AbXKSP3g (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:29:36 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071118.144010.236028466.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > > > > > > All of our options suck, we just have to choose the least sucking one > > > and right now to me that's decrementing the counter as much as I > > > empathize with the SNMP application overflow detection issue. > > > > If the SNMP monitor detects an false overflow the error it reports > > will be much worse than a single missing packet. So you would replace > > one error with a worse error. > > This can be fixed, the above cannot. I don't see how, short of breaking the interface (e.g. reporting 64bit or separate overflow counts) -Andi