linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] fat: add fat_msg

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 14 May 2012 01:10:47 +0900
From:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Amit Sahrawat <amit.sahrawat83@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fat: add fat_msg_ratelimit.

Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> writes:

> On Sun, 2012-05-13 at 07:03 -0400, Namjae Jeon wrote:
>> I tried to add fat_msg_ratelimit to limit many message at once.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Amit Sahrawat <amit.sahrawat83@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/fat/fat.h  |    9 +++++++--
>>  fs/fat/misc.c |   18 ++++++++++--------
>>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.h b/fs/fat/fat.h
>> index 951d12b..3c581c7 100644
>> --- a/fs/fat/fat.h
>> +++ b/fs/fat/fat.h
>> @@ -333,8 +333,13 @@ void __fat_fs_error(struct super_block *sb, int report, const char *fmt, ...);
>>  	__fat_fs_error(sb, 1, fmt , ## args)
>>  #define fat_fs_error_ratelimit(sb, fmt, args...) \
>>  	__fat_fs_error(sb, __ratelimit(&MSDOS_SB(sb)->ratelimit), fmt , ## args)
>> -__printf(3, 4) __cold
>> -void fat_msg(struct super_block *sb, const char *level, const char *fmt, ...);
>> +__printf(4, 5) __cold
>> +void __fat_msg(struct super_block *sb, int report, const char *level,
>> +			const char *fmt, ...);
>> +#define	fat_msg(sb, level, fmt, args...)		\
>> +	__fat_msg(sb, 1, level, fmt, ## args)
>> +#define	fat_msg_ratelimit(sb, level, fmt, args...)	\
>> +	__fat_msg(sb, __ratelimit(&MSDOS_SB(sb)->ratelimit), level, fmt, ## args)
>
> I think it better to move the test above the call
> and not change the fat_msg function at all.
>
> #define fat_msg_ratelimit(sb, level, fmt, args...)		\
> do {								\
> 	if (! __ratelimit(&MSDOS_SB(sb)->ratelimit))		\
> 		fsg_msg(sb, level, fmt, ##args);		\
> } while (0)

Looks sane. I myself don't care either "fat_fs_error vs yours" style.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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/