[dpdk-dev] Future Direction for rte_eth_stats_get()

[Tahhan, Maryam]

> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 2:44 PM
> To: Tahhan, Maryam <maryam.tahhan at intel.com>; David Harton
> (dharton) <dharton at cisco.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; olivier.matz at 6wind.com; Van Haaren, Harry
> <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Future Direction for rte_eth_stats_get()
> 
> 2016-01-22 14:18, Tahhan, Maryam:
> > So what can be enabled again in struct rte_eth_stats  from what was
> already there is the equivalent of:
> > * rx_length_errors
> > * rx_crc_errors
> > * rx_missed_errors - the deprecation notice was removed for this
> field.
> > * multicast
> >
> > What should be added in to distinguish between errors and drops.
> struct rte_eth_stats :
> >  * rx_errors
> >  * tx_errors
> >
> > As for the detailed rx errors and tx errors I'm open to feedback from
> you folks as to what should go in and what is too detailed. These
> weren't in struct rte_eth_stats previously, they are available through
> xstats and are uniformly named across the drivers. Oliver + Harry any
> thoughts?
> >
> > David I assume you are looking for all the missing fields to be added?
> 
> They are not missing. They just not exactly match ones having a long
> history in Linux kernel.
> Please let's avoid to blindly mimic others without thinking about
> modern needs.
> 

My bad wording - I apologise, but I agree we should consider what makes sense and what doesn't.

> > > > From: David Harton
> > > > > Is there a reason the stats have been deprecated?  Why not
> keep
> > > > > the stats in line with the standard linux practices such as
> > > > > rtnl_link_stats64?