lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    SubjectRe: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
    From
    Date
    On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 22:32 -0800, David Miller wrote:
    > > + if (lost) {
    > > + printk(KERN_WARNING
    > > + "printk: %d %s%smessage%s suppressed.\n",
    > > + lost,
    > > + (state->facility == 0 ? "" :
    > > state->facility),
    > > + (state->facility == 0 ? "" : " "),
    > > + (lost > 1 ? "s" : ""));
    > > + }
    > > return 1;
    > > }

    This compares a pointer to 0.

    How about something like:

    if (lost)
    pr_warn("printk: %s suppressed message count: %d\n",
    state->facility ? : "ratelimit", lost);

    > > - missed++;
    > > + state->missed++;
    > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ratelimit_lock, flags);
    > > return 0;
    > > }
    > > @@ -1280,8 +1290,18 @@ int printk_ratelimit_burst = 10;
    > >
    > > int printk_ratelimit(void)
    > > {
    > > + static struct printk_ratelimit_state limit_state = {
    > > + .toks = 10 * 5 * HZ,
    > > + .last_jiffies = 0,
    > > + .missed = 0,
    > > + .limit_jiffies = 5 * HZ,
    > > + .limit_burst = 10,
    > > + .facility = 0
    > > + };
    > > +

    .facility = NULL




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-21 08:03    [W:0.019 / U:0.096 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site