> We could defer the increment until we check the checksum, > but that is likely to break even more things because people > (as Wang Chen did initially) will send a packet to some > port with an app that doesn't eat the packets, and expect the > InDatagrams counter to increase once the stack eats the packet.
Who expects that? Is there really any program who relies on that? If it's just a human: there are a couple of "non intuitive" behaviours in the stack. This would be just another one. Not too big a deal. > But it won't until the application does the read. > > All of our options suck, we just have to choose the least sucking one > and right now to me that's decrementing the counter as much as I > empathize with the SNMP application overflow detection issue. If the SNMP monitor detects an false overflow the error it reports will be much worse than a single missing packet. So you would replace one error with a worse error. -Andi - 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
