lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] printk: miscellaneous cleanups
Sending once again as a correct reply. I am sorry for the
confusion. I think that it is high time for me to go home and sleep :-)

On Wed 2014-07-09 08:04:16, Alex Elder wrote:
> This patch contains some small cleanups to kernel/printk/printk.c.
> None of them should cause any change in behavior.
> - When CONFIG_PRINTK is defined, parenthesize the value of LOG_LINE_MAX.
> - When CONFIG_PRINTK is *not* defined, there is an extra LOG_LINE_MAX
> definition; delete it.
> - Pull an assignment out of a conditional expression in console_setup().
> - Use isdigit() in console_setup() rather than open coding it.
> - In update_console_cmdline(), drop a NUL-termination assignment;
> the strlcpy() call that precedes it guarantees it's not needed.
> - Simplify some logic in printk_timed_ratelimit().
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>
> ---
> kernel/printk/printk.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index 6f75e8a..909029e 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
> #include <linux/poll.h>
> #include <linux/irq_work.h>
> #include <linux/utsname.h>
> +#include <linux/ctype.h>
>
> #include <asm/uaccess.h>
>
> @@ -257,7 +258,7 @@ static u64 clear_seq;
> static u32 clear_idx;
>
> #define PREFIX_MAX 32
> -#define LOG_LINE_MAX 1024 - PREFIX_MAX
> +#define LOG_LINE_MAX (1024 - PREFIX_MAX)
>
> /* record buffer */
> #if defined(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS)
> @@ -1794,7 +1795,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(printk);
>
> #define LOG_LINE_MAX 0
> #define PREFIX_MAX 0
> -#define LOG_LINE_MAX 0
> +
> static u64 syslog_seq;
> static u32 syslog_idx;
> static u64 console_seq;
> @@ -1895,7 +1896,8 @@ static int __init console_setup(char *str)
> strncpy(buf, str, sizeof(buf) - 1);
> }
> buf[sizeof(buf) - 1] = 0;
> - if ((options = strchr(str, ',')) != NULL)
> + options = strchr(str, ',');
> + if (options)
> *(options++) = 0;
> #ifdef __sparc__
> if (!strcmp(str, "ttya"))
> @@ -1904,7 +1906,7 @@ static int __init console_setup(char *str)
> strcpy(buf, "ttyS1");
> #endif
> for (s = buf; *s; s++)
> - if ((*s >= '0' && *s <= '9') || *s == ',')
> + if (isdigit(*s) || *s == ',')
> break;
> idx = simple_strtoul(s, NULL, 10);
> *s = 0;
> @@ -1943,7 +1945,6 @@ int update_console_cmdline(char *name, int idx, char *name_new, int idx_new, cha
> i++, c++)
> if (strcmp(c->name, name) == 0 && c->index == idx) {
> strlcpy(c->name, name_new, sizeof(c->name));
> - c->name[sizeof(c->name) - 1] = 0;
> c->options = options;
> c->index = idx_new;
> return i;
> @@ -2611,14 +2612,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__printk_ratelimit);
> bool printk_timed_ratelimit(unsigned long *caller_jiffies,
> unsigned int interval_msecs)
> {
> - if (*caller_jiffies == 0
> - || !time_in_range(jiffies, *caller_jiffies,
> - *caller_jiffies
> - + msecs_to_jiffies(interval_msecs))) {
> - *caller_jiffies = jiffies;
> - return true;
> - }
> - return false;
> + unsigned long elapsed = jiffies - *caller_jiffies;

I wondered if the deduction might be negative. Well, it should not be
if none manipulates *caller_jiffies in a strange way. If it happens,
the following condition will most likely fail and *caller_jiffies will
get reset to jiffies. It looks reasonable to me.

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.cz>

> + if (*caller_jiffies && elapsed <= msecs_to_jiffies(interval_msecs))
> + return false;
> +
> + *caller_jiffies = jiffies;
> + return true;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(printk_timed_ratelimit);

Best Regards,
Petr


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-09 19:01    [W:0.160 / U:0.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site