On Wed, 13 Mar, 2024 18:40:17 -0700 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:50:39 -0700 Rahul Rameshbabu wrote: >> > Should we give some guidance to drivers which "ignore" time stamping >> > requests if they used up all the "slots"? Even if just temporary until >> > they are fixed? Maybe we can add after all the fields something like: >> > >> > For drivers which ignore further timestamping requests when there are >> > too many in flight, the ignored requests are currently not counted by >> > any of the statistics. >> >> I was actually thinking it would be better to merge them into the error >> counter temporarily. Reason being is that in the case Intel notices that >> their slots are full, they just drop traffic from my understanding >> today. If the error counters increment in that situation, it helps with >> the debug to a degree. EBUSY is an error in general. > > That works, too, let's recommend it (FWIW no preference whether > in the entry for @err or somewhere separately in the kdoc). /** * struct ethtool_ts_stats - HW timestamping statistics * @tx_stats: struct group for TX HW timestamping * @pkts: Number of packets successfully timestamped by the hardware. * @lost: Number of hardware timestamping requests where the timestamping * information from the hardware never arrived for submission with * the skb. * @err: Number of arbitrary timestamp generation error events that the * hardware encountered, exclusive of @lost statistics. Cases such * as resource exhaustion, unavailability, firmware errors, and * detected illogical timestamp values not submitted with the skb * are inclusive to this counter. */ Here is my current draft for the error counter documentation. -- Thanks, Rahul Rameshbabu
