From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: net driver error accounting Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:38:09 -0400 Message-ID: <46B240B1.9080003@garzik.org> References: <20070802131718.84543097.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Natalie Protasevich To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:47242 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751456AbXHBUiN (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:38:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070802131718.84543097.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > Looking at http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8106 > > Guys, could we please have a ruling here? > > When a net driver encounters a tx_fifo_error, should this also contribute > to the tx_error count, or should it not? For each TX error, (a) tx_error is incremented and (b) a more-specific TX error stat is also potentially incremented. So, yes, tx_error accumulates. See cp_tx() in 8139cp. > More generally, should netdev drivers accumulate all the detailed > rx_errors into net_device_stats.rx_errors in real time, or should they not? For each RX error, (a) rx_error is incremented and (b) a more-specific RX error stat is also potentially incremented. So, yes, rx_error accumulates. See cp_rx_err_acct() in 8139cp. Jeff