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
On 07/09/2014 11:29 AM, Petr Mládek wrote:
> 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

. . .

>> @@ -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;
>

Currently, all callers pass a 0 value in *caller_jiffies
initially (using a static/BSS variable), and a value updated
by a previous call to __printk_ratelimit() thereafter.

If a caller passed something different, yes, it's possible the
result would wrap to a high unsigned value (i.e., go negative).
However the logic used here involves the same subtraction
operation as was used before--though previously that was
buried inside the time_after() macro called by time_in_range().

-Alex

> 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
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-09 20:41    [W:0.163 / U:3.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site