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/linux/kernel.h 2008-01-24 16:58:37.000000000 > + * This enforces a rate limit to mitigate denial-of-service attacks: > + * not more than ratelimit_burst messages every ratelimit_jiffies. > */ > -int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int ratelimit_burst) > +int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, > + int ratelimit_burst, > + struct printk_ratelimit_state *state) I think the value of in-place tunables is low. I'd remove that bit and use the struct printk_ratelimit_state. David Miller points out that struct initializations to 0 or NULL are not necessary. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
