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 <[email protected]> > --- > 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 > @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ > #include <linux/poll.h> > #include <linux/irq_work.h> > #include <linux/utsname.h> > +#include <linux/ctype.h> > > #include <asm/uaccess.h> > > @@ -257,7 +258,7 @@ static u64 clear_seq; > static u32 clear_idx; > > #define PREFIX_MAX 32 > -#define LOG_LINE_MAX 1024 - PREFIX_MAX > +#define LOG_LINE_MAX (1024 - PREFIX_MAX) > > /* record buffer */ > #if defined(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) > @@ -1794,7 +1795,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(printk); > > #define LOG_LINE_MAX 0 > #define PREFIX_MAX 0 > -#define LOG_LINE_MAX 0 > + > static u64 syslog_seq; > static u32 syslog_idx; > static u64 console_seq; > @@ -1895,7 +1896,8 @@ static int __init console_setup(char *str) > strncpy(buf, str, sizeof(buf) - 1); > } > buf[sizeof(buf) - 1] = 0; > - if ((options = strchr(str, ',')) != NULL) > + options = strchr(str, ','); > + if (options) > *(options++) = 0; > #ifdef __sparc__ > if (!strcmp(str, "ttya")) > @@ -1904,7 +1906,7 @@ static int __init console_setup(char *str) > strcpy(buf, "ttyS1"); > #endif > for (s = buf; *s; s++) > - if ((*s >= '0' && *s <= '9') || *s == ',') > + if (isdigit(*s) || *s == ',') > break; > idx = simple_strtoul(s, NULL, 10); > *s = 0; > @@ -1943,7 +1945,6 @@ int update_console_cmdline(char *name, int idx, char > *name_new, int idx_new, cha > i++, c++) > if (strcmp(c->name, name) == 0 && c->index == idx) { > strlcpy(c->name, name_new, sizeof(c->name)); > - c->name[sizeof(c->name) - 1] = 0; > c->options = options; > c->index = idx_new; > return i; > @@ -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; 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 <[email protected]> > + 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 [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
