On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 17:49 -0600, Hawkes Steve-FSH016 wrote:
> Are you saying the few lines of code to handle changes to the tunables
> aren't worth keeping?
Yes.
I think the tunables, if needed at all, should be set by modifying
the struct and the call might as well be:
bool __printk_r
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:36:40 -0600 Steven Hawkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Steve Hawkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The printk_ratelimit() and net_ratelimit() functions each have their own
> tunable parameters to control their respective rate limiting feature, but
> they share common state v
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:47 -0600, Hawkes Steve-FSH016 wrote:
> How about this?
line wrapped, but seems better.
> Signed-off-by: Steve Hawkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> diff -uprN linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h
> linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/include/linux/kernel.h
> --- linux-2.6.24/include/
From: "Hawkes Steve-FSH016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:47:11 -0600
> > .facility = NULL
>
> How about this?
Actually, for compile time initializations, setting
anything to zero is superfluous and by convention
is not therefore explicitly done in the sources.
--
To unsubscribe
Joe Perches wrote:
>
> 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-
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 ? "" :
>
From: "Hawkes Steve-FSH016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:30:51 -0600
[ netdev CC:'d ]
> The printk_ratelimit() and net_ratelimit() functions are coupled and
> interfere with each other. Each has their own tunable parameters to
> control their respective rate limiting feature, but
7 matches
Mail list logo
