Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-102699-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 18:40:17 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Rahul Rameshbabu <rrameshbabu@nvidia.com>
Cc: ahmed.zaki@intel.com, aleksander.lobakin@intel.com,
 alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com, andrew@lunn.ch, corbet@lwn.net,
 davem@davemloft.net, dtatulea@nvidia.com, edumazet@google.com,
 gal@nvidia.com, hkallweit1@gmail.com, jacob.e.keller@intel.com,
 jiri@resnulli.us, joabreu@synopsys.com, justinstitt@google.com,
 kory.maincent@bootlin.com, leon@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, liuhangbin@gmail.com,
 maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
 paul.greenwalt@intel.com, przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com,
 rdunlap@infradead.org, richardcochran@gmail.com, saeed@kernel.org,
 tariqt@nvidia.com, vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev, vladimir.oltean@nxp.com,
 wojciech.drewek@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/6] ethtool: add interface to read Tx hardware
 timestamping statistics
Message-ID: <20240313184017.794a2044@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <87h6h9bpm1.fsf@nvidia.com>
References: <20240223192658.45893-1-rrameshbabu@nvidia.com>
	<20240309084440.299358-1-rrameshbabu@nvidia.com>
	<20240309084440.299358-2-rrameshbabu@nvidia.com>
	<20240312165346.14ec1941@kernel.org>
	<87le6lbqsa.fsf@nvidia.com>
	<20240313174107.68ca4ff1@kernel.org>
	<87h6h9bpm1.fsf@nvidia.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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).