From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jan  3 21:33:41 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C6916A4CE
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>;
	Sat,  3 Jan 2004 21:33:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB67343D2D
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>;
	Sat,  3 Jan 2004 21:33:40 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i045XU7E008256;
	Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:33:35 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200401040533.i045XU7E008256@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:33:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: dejan.lesjak@ijs.si
In-Reply-To: <200401040514.30273.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: ryans@gamersimpact.com
cc: silby@silby.com
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: 5.2-RC oerrs and collisions on dc0
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:33:41 -0000

On  4 Jan, Dejan Lesjak wrote:

> Hello again,
> With this line commented out, I still get both errors and collisions, twice as 
> much collisions as errors. On another occasion, I also added two printf lines 
> in here:
>                         if (txstat & DC_TXSTAT_EXCESSCOLL)
>                                 ifp->if_collisions++;
> 				printf("EXCESSCOLL\n");
>                         if (txstat & DC_TXSTAT_LATECOLL)
>                                 ifp->if_collisions++;
> 				printf("LATECOLL\n");
> and I constantly get both of those, so this would be where counters go up if 
> this helps in any way.

The driver might be less verbose if you added some braces here.

I'm not familiar with this hardware, but I suspect that these two flags
should probably not increment the collision counter.  These are errors
that result in the packet being dropped, so they should count as output
errors.  The hardware collision counter is probably incremented in these
cases, so incrementing if_collisions probably results in these types of
collisions being double counted.