On 8/23/16, 12:26 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 09:04:15AM CEST, da...@davemloft.net wrote: >> From: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> >> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 08:53:18 +0200 >> >>> Anyway I think that next level of nesting is not necessary. On >>> contrary, it is wrong. The current level is extensible, mixed and >>> flagged already. I don't see any reason why not to add whatever kind of >>> stats here. What makes IFLA_STATS_LINK_SW_64 or for example >>> IFLA_STATS_LINK_HW_ACL so special it has to be nested in some other >>> attr? I would understand it it would be values of one family, but that >>> is not the case. >> First, I agree with Roopa. If we want to put this stuff out >> there is should be bucketed together in a nested attribute with >> other similar stats specifications. > Well I still don't think that IFLA_STATS_LINK_SW_64 and > IFLA_STATS_LINK_HW_ACL are related. You cannot put it under *DRIVER* > nest as IFLA_STATS_LINK_SW_64 are core stats. not sure i understand, why is this core stats ?. should a new logical device implement IFLA_STATS_LINK_64 or IFLA_STATS_LINK_SW_64 ? any other users ?.
> So we can put them under > *MISC* nest attr. But that is exactly purpose of the top-level here. > /me confused By design top level is for higher level grouping of stats (that also helps us maintain a lean higher level filter space). They are mainly categories of stats. for example we have a nested link XSTATS attribute..which are again a break down of stats already counted in IFLA_STATS_LINK_64. That's why I think we can group this into another kind of breakdown stats. thanks, Roopa
