[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1203970417.19319.287.camel@localhost>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:13:37 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Hawkes Steve-FSH016 <Steve.Hawkes@...orola.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable
behavior
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:47 -0600, Hawkes Steve-FSH016 wrote:
> How about this?
line wrapped, but seems better.
> Signed-off-by: Steve Hawkes <steve.hawkes@...orola.com>
>
> diff -uprN linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h
> linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/include/linux/kernel.h
> --- linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h 2008-01-24 16:58:37.000000000
> + * This enforces a rate limit to mitigate denial-of-service attacks:
> + * not more than ratelimit_burst messages every ratelimit_jiffies.
> */
> -int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int ratelimit_burst)
> +int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies,
> + int ratelimit_burst,
> + struct printk_ratelimit_state *state)
I think the value of in-place tunables is low.
I'd remove that bit and use the struct printk_ratelimit_state.
David Miller points out that struct initializations to 0 or NULL
are not necessary.
--
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