From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: tcp: update mib LISTENOVERFLOWS if syn
 flood
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 13:59:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <20180401.135925.2043643332801437407.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20180329112009.1379-1-cugyly@163.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Linyu.Yuan@alcatel-sbell.com.cn
To: cugyly@163.com
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:56762 "EHLO
        shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753700AbeDAR71 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:59:27 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20180329112009.1379-1-cugyly@163.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

From: yuan linyu <cugyly@163.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 19:20:09 +0800

> From: yuan linyu <Linyu.Yuan@alcatel-sbell.com.cn>
> 
> it's better to update mib LISTENOVERFLOWS even if packet is flood
> 
> Signed-off-by: yuan linyu <Linyu.Yuan@alcatel-sbell.com.cn>

When we drop because of synflood we had no intention of trying to add
to the accept queue.  Therefore bumping the listen overflow counter
makes no sense.

I'm not applying this, sorry.