On Wed. 24 Nov. 2021 at 06:10, Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 23.11.21 12:53, Vincent Mailhol wrote: > > There are two common errors which are made when reporting the CAN RX > > statistics: > > > > 1. Incrementing the "normal" RX stats when receiving an Error > > frame. Error frames is an abstraction of Socket CAN and does not > > exist on the wire. > > > > 2. Counting the length of the Remote Transmission Frames (RTR). The > > length of an RTR frame is the length of the requested frame not the > > actual payload. In reality the payload of an RTR frame is always 0 > > bytes long. > > > > This patch series fix those two issues for all CAN drivers. > > > > Vincent Mailhol (2): > > can: do not increase rx statistics when receiving CAN error frames > > can: do not increase rx_bytes statistics for RTR frames > > I would suggest to upstream this change without bringing it to older > (stable) trees. > > It doesn't fix any substantial flaw which needs to be backported IMHO. I fully agree. Bringing it to the stable trees would be a considerable effort and was not my intent either (thus the absence of "Fixes" tags). > Btw. can you please change 'error frames' to 'error message frames'? > > We had a discussion some years ago that the 'error frames' are used as > term inside the CAN protocol. ACK. Thanks for the clarification on the vocabulary. Yours sincerely, Vincent Mailhol
