[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1337106430.15553.6.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 20:27:10 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-decnet-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter@...r.kernel.org,
coreteam@...filter.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
dev@...nvswitch.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] net: Use net_<level>_ratelimit
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 10:59 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> OK, but fyi, there's a possible issue with !CONFIG_DEBUG
> builds because these patches converted some uses of
> if (net_ratelimit())
> printk(KERN_DEBUG ...
> to
> net_dbg_ratelimited()
>
> These messages are no longer emitted when DEBUG isn't defined
> and not using dynamic_debug. I'm not sure that's a real
> problem, but it's a difference.
>
> I could produce a net_printk_ratelimited that would keep
> the original behavior if necessary.
>
> net_printk_ratelimited(KERN_DEBUG etc...)
Btw, what would the difference be to just plain printk_ratelimited()?
johannes
--
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