[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52650F60.5080402@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:26:24 +0800
From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netfilter@...r.kernel.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23 v2] cleanup: introduce br/netdev/netif/wiphy_<foo>_ratelimited()
and use them to simplify code
On 10/18 12:11, Joe Perches wrote:
> (resending to lists only because of multiple X's in the subject line)
>
> On Fri, 2013-10-18 at 11:52 +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>> v1-v2:
>>
>> Introduce macro br/netdev/netif/wiphy_XXX_ratelimited() according
>> to Joe Perches's advice. The macros are similar to net_XXX_ratelimited()
>> which is more clarifying than net_ratelimited_function(), then use them
>> to simplify code.
>
> There are some conceptual differences between these
> implementations and other <foo>_ratelimited uses.
>
> For every other subsystem but net, there is a per-location
> struct ratelimit_state.
yes, but I think I just changed net subsystem. Macro DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE used
DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL and DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST, so what do you think?
Could anyone give me some advises ?
> Here you've made the global net_ratelimit_state replace all
> of these individual structs so there is some new interaction.
>
> Dunno if that's good or bad.
>
>
>
>
>
--
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