[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1203577246.7181.241.camel@localhost>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:00:46 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Steve.Hawkes@...orola.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable
behavior
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 22:32 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > + if (lost) {
> > + printk(KERN_WARNING
> > + "printk: %d %s%smessage%s suppressed.\n",
> > + lost,
> > + (state->facility == 0 ? "" :
> > state->facility),
> > + (state->facility == 0 ? "" : " "),
> > + (lost > 1 ? "s" : ""));
> > + }
> > return 1;
> > }
This compares a pointer to 0.
How about something like:
if (lost)
pr_warn("printk: %s suppressed message count: %d\n",
state->facility ? : "ratelimit", lost);
> > - missed++;
> > + state->missed++;
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ratelimit_lock, flags);
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -1280,8 +1290,18 @@ int printk_ratelimit_burst = 10;
> >
> > int printk_ratelimit(void)
> > {
> > + static struct printk_ratelimit_state limit_state = {
> > + .toks = 10 * 5 * HZ,
> > + .last_jiffies = 0,
> > + .missed = 0,
> > + .limit_jiffies = 5 * HZ,
> > + .limit_burst = 10,
> > + .facility = 0
> > + };
> > +
.facility = NULL
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists