[I've set the reply-to to tech-misc to redirect discussion there.]

Havard Eidnes <he@netbsd.org> writes:
> If this does what I think it does (after browsing the code, I think it
> does), zeroing the packet statistics will break the monotonous
> increase of counters restriction imposed on SNMP agents

Certainly. However, the ioctl in question already existed -- this
merely exposed it in an ordinary utility program, as you later note.

Really, I wish that there was a NetBSD Technical Review Board that
would give you an answer to questions like this within a few days so
that you could just quickly close the argument about particular
features. Often having a speedy final answer is the most important
requirement for ending acrimonious technical discussion, even if the
answer is not 100% perfect by some imaginary metric. (The truth is
that there often isn't a perfect answer so no 100% perfect solution
exists anyway and any of several solutions are acceptable provided
someone actually has the power to make a final decision and end
debate.)

Unfortunately, core does not seem inclined to answer anything quickly
(if ever), so we're forced to go by our own judgment.

So, let me note that if you want to modify or remove the feature or
its implementation, I will not be the least bit upset. I'm more
concerned with finality and consensus than with the feature.

> I know, this is perhaps more a criticism of the implementation of
> SIOCZIFDATA than this particular snippet of code, though exposing the
> knob even more (as is done here) makes this more of a problem.

Arguably. As I said, I'll happily defer to the judgment of others
provided that it is done quickly and with decisiveness. What would
upset me would be a lingering time-wasting debate and a trail of open
PRs festering for eight years.

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry@piermont.com