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
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
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 variables, preventing independent tuning of the
parameters from working correctly.
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
> ---
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,
> > > +
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-facility == 0 ? :
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 from
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
---
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 variables, preventing independent tuning of the
parameters from working correctly. Also,
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
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
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,
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 they
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 ? :
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 they share common
state variables, causing the rate limiting to behave in an unexpected
fashion when the
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 they share common
state variables, causing the rate limiting to behave in an unexpected
fashion when the
18 matches
Mail list logo
