On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:48:27PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 01:05:53PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-06-20 at 14:21 -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I looked at this some more. It seems like my v2 backport may be the
> > > most suitable for the
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:48:27PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 01:05:53PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Fri, 2014-06-20 at 14:21 -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
[...]
I looked at this some more. It seems like my v2 backport may be the
most suitable for the releases
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 01:05:53PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-20 at 14:21 -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> [...]
> > I looked at this some more. It seems like my v2 backport may be the
> > most suitable for the releases mentioned in the subject line, but I'd
> > like to get
On Fri, 2014-06-20 at 14:21 -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
[...]
> I looked at this some more. It seems like my v2 backport may be the
> most suitable for the releases mentioned in the subject line, but I'd
> like to get additional feedback.
>
> The lines added by commit a5065eb just get
On Fri, 2014-06-20 at 14:21 -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
[...]
I looked at this some more. It seems like my v2 backport may be the
most suitable for the releases mentioned in the subject line, but I'd
like to get additional feedback.
The lines added by commit a5065eb just get removed by
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 01:05:53PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Fri, 2014-06-20 at 14:21 -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
[...]
I looked at this some more. It seems like my v2 backport may be the
most suitable for the releases mentioned in the subject line, but I'd
like to get additional
On 06/20/2014 11:21 AM, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> On 06/18/2014 09:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 14:32 -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
>>> From: Sander Eikelenboom
>>>
>>> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1319457
>>>
>>> This (widely used) construction:
>>>
>>>
On 06/18/2014 09:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 14:32 -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
>> From: Sander Eikelenboom
>>
>> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1319457
>>
>> This (widely used) construction:
>>
>> if(printk_ratelimit())
>> dev_dbg()
>>
>> Causes the
On 06/18/2014 09:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 14:32 -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
From: Sander Eikelenboom li...@eikelenboom.it
BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1319457
This (widely used) construction:
if(printk_ratelimit())
dev_dbg()
Causes the
On 06/20/2014 11:21 AM, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
On 06/18/2014 09:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 14:32 -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
From: Sander Eikelenboom li...@eikelenboom.it
BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1319457
This (widely used) construction:
On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 14:32 -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> From: Sander Eikelenboom
>
> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1319457
>
> This (widely used) construction:
>
> if(printk_ratelimit())
> dev_dbg()
>
> Causes the ratelimiting to spam the kernel log with the "callbacks
From: Sander Eikelenboom
BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1319457
This (widely used) construction:
if(printk_ratelimit())
dev_dbg()
Causes the ratelimiting to spam the kernel log with the "callbacks suppressed"
message below, even while the dev_dbg it is supposed to rate limit
From: Sander Eikelenboom li...@eikelenboom.it
BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1319457
This (widely used) construction:
if(printk_ratelimit())
dev_dbg()
Causes the ratelimiting to spam the kernel log with the callbacks suppressed
message below, even while the dev_dbg it is
On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 14:32 -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
From: Sander Eikelenboom li...@eikelenboom.it
BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1319457
This (widely used) construction:
if(printk_ratelimit())
dev_dbg()
Causes the ratelimiting to spam the kernel log with the
14 matches
Mail list logo