In article <200710231608.34661.nakam@linux-ipv6.org> (at Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:08:34 +0900), Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@linux-ipv6.org> says:

quoted text
> Monday 22 October 2007 21:28, jamal wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-22-10 at 15:11 +0900, Masahide NAKAMURA wrote:
:
quoted text
> This point is one of what I want to hear comment.
> My patch uses "XFRM_MIB_XXX" because I found "LINUX_MIB_XXX" definition at
> include/linux/snmp.h for TCP extended statistics at /proc/net/netstat and
> it does not seem to be defined by any RFC specification. Then I feel it is not so bad to
> use _MIB_ for them. Maybe we have another idea to merge them into LINUX_MIB.
> 
> Now we have the following candidates:
> 
> (1) my patch		XFRM_MIB_INHDRERROR
> (2) some extender	XFRM_XXX_INHDRERROR	(XXX is requested)
> (3) not-mib extender	XFRM_NOTMIB_INHDRERROR
> (4) no extender		XFRM_INHDRERROR
> (5) merge linux-mib	LINUX_MIB_XFRMINHDRERROR
> 
> Comments?

I would support (5) or (1).

--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html