sctp: export SctpT1Retransmits to /proc/net/sctp/snmp
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 2/3 sctp: export SctpT1Retransmits to /proc/net/sctp/snmp
SctpT1Retransmits is defined and counted, but is not exported to snmp file.
We don't know if any user applications read this snmp file, so we add it to he end of snmp file. This seems be more safe than exporting it according to the definition in order.
--- net/sctp/proc.c | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
net/sctp/proc.c +1 -0
@@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ static const struct snmp_mib sctp_snmp_list[] = {SNMP_MIB_ITEM ("SctpInPktBacklog" ,SCTP_MIB_IN_PKT_BACKLOG ),SNMP_MIB_ITEM ("SctpInPktDiscards" ,SCTP_MIB_IN_PKT_DISCARDS ),SNMP_MIB_ITEM ("SctpInDataChunkDiscards" ,SCTP_MIB_IN_DATA_CHUNK_DISCARDS ), +SNMP_MIB_ITEM ("SctpT1Retransmits" ,SCTP_MIB_T1_RETRANSMITS ), SNMP_MIB_SENTINEL };
Signature · 1 line
1.7.0
Hi
Quoted 18 lines · Shan Wei
SctpT1Retransmits is defined and counted, but is not exported to snmp file.
We don't know if any user applications read this snmp file, so we add it to he end of snmp file. This seems be more safe than exporting it according to the definition in order.
Signed-off-by Shan Wei <[email protected]>--- net/sctp/proc.c | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)net/sctp/proc.c +0
-0
net/sctp/proc.c static const struct snmp_mib sctp_snmp_list[] = { · line 79
Quoted 7 lines
net/sctp/proc.c +1
-0@@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ static const struct snmp_mib sctp_snmp_list[] = {SNMP_MIB_ITEM ("SctpInPktBacklog" ,SCTP_MIB_IN_PKT_BACKLOG ),SNMP_MIB_ITEM ("SctpInPktDiscards" ,SCTP_MIB_IN_PKT_DISCARDS ),SNMP_MIB_ITEM ("SctpInDataChunkDiscards" ,SCTP_MIB_IN_DATA_CHUNK_DISCARDS ), +SNMP_MIB_ITEM ("SctpT1Retransmits" ,SCTP_MIB_T1_RETRANSMITS ), SNMP_MIB_SENTINEL };
Why do you need that when we already have SctpT1InitExpireds and SctpT1CookieExpireds. Just sum them together and you get the the T1_RETRANSMITS.
-vlad
Hi vlad:
Vlad Yasevich wrote, at 07/02/2010 10:31 PM:
Quoted 3 lines
Why do you need that when we already have SctpT1InitExpireds and SctpT1CookieExpireds. Just sum them together and you get the the
T1_RETRANSMITS.
T1_RETRANSMITS is not equal to the summation of SctpT1InitExpireds and SctpT1CookieExpireds.
If an host received stale cookie error at COOKIE-ECHOED state, it will sent a new INIT chunk to the endpoint and restart to set up the association. The resented new INIT chunk is counted to T1_RETRANSMITS.
SctpT1InitExpireds/SctpT1CookieExpireds is counted for timeout event of T1_INIT/T1_COOKIE.
Signature · 3 lines
Best Regards ----- Shan Wei
Quoted 10 lines · Shan Wei
Hi vlad:
Vlad Yasevich wrote, at 07/02/2010 10:31 PM:
Quoted 3 lines
Why do you need that when we already have SctpT1InitExpireds and SctpT1CookieExpireds. Just sum them together and you get the the
T1_RETRANSMITS.
T1_RETRANSMITSis not equal to the summation of SctpT1InitExpireds and SctpT1CookieExpireds.
Quoted 7 lines
If an host received stale cookie error at COOKIE-ECHOED state, it will sent a new INIT chunk to the endpoint and restart to set up the association. The resented new INIT chunk is counted to
T1_RETRANSMITS.SctpT1InitExpireds/SctpT1CookieExpireds is counted for timeout event of T1_INIT/T1_COOKIE.
So I fail to see the usefulness of showing and even keeping that counter. When you look at the value, what new information will it provide you?
If it is only the retransmissions due to stale cookie error, then by all means, track that value instead. That would actually provide new and useful data. That's really the gist of my objection. There is no reason to track and display useless pieces of information.
-vlad