[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46183d11-5800-bb69-2da8-58fadc699cb8@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 23:14:55 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Franck Bui <fbui@...e.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3 1/2] ratelimit: Extend to print suppressed messages on
release
On 05/07/2016 22:53, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Yes, this is new in next. As far as I can see, the new message would only
> appear if we would call ratelimit_state_exit. Correct? We do not call this -
> I assume this is ok?
>
> We really only want to reuse the rate limit base code (to avoid writing the same
> code twice) and being in lib indicated that this can indeed be used outside
> printk.
> Now: your patch 1 would allow me to get rid of the messages completely
> by setting the flag and by not calling ratelimit_state_exit. Which is probably
> what we should do in our code.
Can we delay fixing this after the code is merged in Linus's tree?
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists