On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:05:15 +0100 Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:32:09AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 11:25:50 +0100 > > Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > yes, I think it is definitely better. So to follow up: > > > - rename current "xdp_tx" counter in "xdp_xmit" and increment it for > > > XDP_TX verdict and for ndo_xdp_xmit > > > - introduce a new "xdp_tx" counter only for XDP_TX verdict. > > > > > > If we agree I can post a follow-up patch. > > > > I agree, that sounds like an improvement to this patchset. > > > > > > I suspect David Ahern have some opinions about more general stats for > > XDP, but that it is a more general discussion, that it outside this > > patchset, but we should also have that discussion. > > Hi Jesper > > I've not been following XDP too much, but xdp_xmit seems pretty > generic. It would be nice if all drivers used the same statistics > names. Less user confusion that way. So why is this outside of the > discussion? I do want to have this discussion, please. I had hoped this patchset sparked this that discussion... maybe we can have it despite this patchset already got applied? My only request is that, if we don't revert, we fixup the "xdp_tx" counter name. It would make it easier for us[1] if we can keep them applied, as we are preparing (asciinema) demos for [1]. That said, I think it is rather important to standardize on same statistics names across drivers... which is an assignment that Lorenzo have already signed up for [2]. [1] https://netdevconf.info/0x14/session.html?tutorial-add-XDP-support-to-a-NIC-driver [2] https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-project/blob/master/planning.org#consistency-for-statistics-with-xdp -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
