lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RFC: per-socket statistics on received/dropped packets


Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Ben Greear wrote:
>
>>If they are useful to some people, and have zero performance affect on others
>>(due to being a configurable kernel feature), then what is your
>>complaint?
>>
>
> 3) Added features and complexity makes it more difficult to maintain the
> kernel (you could say this is a variant of 1)


Adding counters to structures generally is not going to increase
complexity (especially when you comment the code). It would increase
the code size slightly.

The code to bump the counters should also be extremely simple
(surely we don't drop packets in more than just a few places).

So, in this case, the increase in complexity seems pretty minimal.


> 4) Patches that have only a little debugging/etc. value are probably
> useful, but mainly for a specific set of people, and this would seem to be
> best handled by external patches.


External-only patches almost always rot, and are extremely hard to really
share across organizations. Still, point taken.

Thanks,
Ben

--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> <Ben_Greear AT excite.com>
President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.150 / U:1.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site