Correct UDP link capability in JSON and CPU Utlization for Server Text output #1358
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Eeiyory
approved these changes
Nov 24, 2022
davidBar-On
force-pushed
the
issue-754-incorrect-udp-link-capability-in-json-output
branch
from
08797bb
to
3a8e690
Compare
davidBar-On
force-pushed
the
issue-754-incorrect-udp-link-capability-in-json-output
branch
from
3a8e690
to
00ea5a0
Compare
davidBar-On
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Version of iperf3 (or development branch, such as
masteror3.1-STABLE) to which this pull request applies:master
Issues fixed (if any):
UDP link capacity reported as 0 in JSON output #754
Incomplete and incorrect CPU utilization output #1552
Brief description of code changes (suitable for use as a commit message):
Suggested fix for issue #754 - correct UDP JSON output. The main issue was on the server's side since the call to
reporter_callback()was done prior to results exchange with the client. In addition, some enhancements were done to the reported received and sent bytes count.Update - 26Jul2023:
Added a suggested fix to #1552 since it also requires the same move of the call to
reporter_callback(). Since this is a minor and related change, I believe that it is o.k. to handle both fixes together.