> Williams, Mitch A wrote:
> >>> + { "rx_broadcast", E1000_STAT(stats.bprc) },
> >>> + { "tx_broadcast", E1000_STAT(stats.bptc) },
> >>> + { "rx_multicast", E1000_STAT(stats.mprc) },
> >>> + { "tx_multicast", E1000_STAT(stats.mptc) },
> >>> { "rx_errors", E1000_STAT(net_stats.rx_errors) },
> >>> { "tx_errors", E1000_STAT(net_stats.tx_errors) },
> >>> { "tx_dropped", E1000_STAT(net_stats.tx_dropped) },
> >> NAK -- you also need to remove the standard net stats, which are
> >> exported elsewhere
> >
> > Jeff, can you please explain the reason for this NAK a little more?
> > Neither Auke nor I understand why you rejected the patch.
> >
> > This patch just adds the display of a few more stats in Ethtool. It
> > doesn't affect any other counters, and is really just a convenience
> > feature. I added this to the driver because of a customer request.
>
> Adding those stats is fine. You guys just need to remove the existing
> mess first.
>
> Jeff
>
Since we have 1-to-1 mapping of some of our statistics registers to the
net_stats, we could s/net_stats/stats/. However, there are a few
net_stats (e.g. net_stats.rx_errors) that encapsulate more than one
e1000 statistic register of which we don't have a private stat member
defined.
For those statistics, is it really necessary to add another stat
structure just to rm "net_stats" from that list we pass to ethtool? At
best, it would look something like this...
{ "foo_count", E1000_STAT(stats.foo) },
- { "rx_errors", E1000_STAT(net_stats.rx_errors) },
+ { "rx_errors", E1000_STAT(eth_stats.rx_errors) },
{ "bar_count", E1000_STAT(stats.bar) },
If so, well, OK. I'm just scratching my head as to why it's a "mess"
as-is.
I've missed obvious alternatives before; care to enlighten?
-Jeb
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
