[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1337104765.7050.24.camel@joe2Laptop>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:59:25 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: 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 13:45 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 00:56:24 -0700
>
> > net_ratelimit() like __ratelimit() is too easy to misuse.
> >
> > Add simplifying macros similar to pr_<level>_ratelimited
> > that combines the test of net_ratelimit and logging.
> >
> > Joe Perches (2):
> > net: Add net_ratelimited_function and net_<level>_ratelimited macros
> > net: Convert net_ratelimit uses to net_<level>_ratelimited
>
> These look fine to me so I've applied them to net-next and am
> sanity checking the build right now.
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...)
cheers, Joe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists