In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:08:34 +0900), Masahide NAKAMURA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Monday 22 October 2007 21:28, jamal wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-22-10 at 15:11 +0900, Masahide NAKAMURA wrote: : > This point is one of what I want to hear comment. > My patch uses "XFRM_MIB_XXX" because I found "LINUX_MIB_XXX" definition at > include/linux/snmp.h for TCP extended statistics at /proc/net/netstat and > it does not seem to be defined by any RFC specification. Then I feel it is > not so bad to > use _MIB_ for them. Maybe we have another idea to merge them into LINUX_MIB. > > Now we have the following candidates: > > (1) my patch XFRM_MIB_INHDRERROR > (2) some extender XFRM_XXX_INHDRERROR (XXX is requested) > (3) not-mib extender XFRM_NOTMIB_INHDRERROR > (4) no extender XFRM_INHDRERROR > (5) merge linux-mib LINUX_MIB_XFRMINHDRERROR > > Comments? I would support (5) or (1). --yoshfuji - 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
