From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:05:18 +0100
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:29:45AM -0500, Bill Fink wrote: > > While I agree with your analysis that it could be worked around, > > who knows how all the various SNMP monitoring applications out there > > would interpret such an unusual event. I liked Stephen's suggestion > > of a deferred decrement that would insure the counter didn't ever > > run backwards. But the best approach seems to be just not to count > > it in the first place until tha application has actually received > > the packet, since as Herbert pointed out, that's what the RFC > > actually specifies for the meaning of the udpInDatagrams counter. > > Together with another counter that counts "edge datagrams received" > that would be an excellent idea. > > Here's a patch. NFS and friends that use the ->data_ready() callback needs to be updated as well. Please fix this and resubmit, thanks. - 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
