Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 04:54:34PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: >On 16-06-17 10:05 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 03:48:35PM CEST, d...@cumulusnetworks.com wrote: >>>On 6/17/16 2:24 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>> > >> >>That is problematic. Existing apps depend on rtnetlink stats. But if we >>don't count offloaded forwarded packets, the apps don't see anything. >>Therefore I believe that this patchset approach is better. The existing >>apps continue to work and future apps can use newly introduces sw_stats >>to query slowpath traffic. Makes sense to me. >> > >I agree with Jiri. It is a bad idea to depend on ethtool for any of >this stuff. Is there a way we can tag netlink stats instead >to indicate they are hardware or software?
In this patchset, those are 2 nl attrs. And they come kernel->user at once. So I see no need for any tagging. Also won't be appropriate. >We already have a use case with the tc where someone could get/set >hardware and/or software. That is user->kernel. > >cheers, >jamal
