On Tue, 2025-07-08 at 06:58 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > On 7/8/25 05:31, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Wed, 2024-12-18 at 15:25 -0800, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > For drivers that can report the tx link-id, account tx > > > stats against that link. If we cannot determine tx link, > > > then use deflink. > > > > According to all the RX stats discussion [1] you need some changes here, > > so I'd appreciate if you could take a look and rebase/resend. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/c22a9e7e-d0f7-477b-b732-c2454a0ac904@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > And please, as I very frequently keep asking you, don't mix different > > things into a single patch (such as 'rep_packets'/'rep_bytes' in this > > patch). By insisting on not splitting your patches properly before > > submitting them you're effectively saying your time is more important > > than mine, and I don't appreciate that. All that achieves is that I > > don't even want to look at your patches. > > As far as I can tell, I split them properly. I added new counters in one > patch you reference above, and I named them as I think they should be named. > In another patch, I renamed existing variables with a commit message as to why. This patch said: > For drivers that can report the tx link-id, account tx > stats against that link. If we cannot determine tx link, > then use deflink. which I think we can agree should be only a refactoring/fix of the link that the counters go on? But you also have > + /* Packets and bytes reported transmitted (per link) */ > + u64 rep_packets; > + u64 rep_bytes; which was probably meant to be in the third patch? johannes
