Joe Perches <[email protected]> wrote @ Mon, 14 May 2012 08:05:39 +0200:
> On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 07:40 +0200, Hiroshi Doyu wrote: > > Joe Perches <[email protected]> wrote @ Mon, 14 May 2012 07:25:55 +0200: > > > On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 07:00 +0200, Hiroshi Doyu wrote: > > > > Joe Perches <[email protected]> wrote @ Sat, 12 May 2012 17:31:35 +0200: > > > > > On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 12:52 +0200, Hiroshi Doyu wrote: > > > > > > An unclosed "if" statement in the MACRO seems a bit risky, but I > > > > > > don't > > > > > > have any better/simple solution for this, ATM. Is there any > > > > > > alternative? > > > > > > > > > > maybe something like: > > > > > > > > > > #define dev_ratelimited_level(dev, level, fmt, ...) > > > > > do { > > > > > static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(_rs, > > > > > \ > > > > > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL, > > > > > \ > > > > > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST); > > > > > \ > > > > > if (__ratelimit(&_rs)) > > > > > \ > > > > > dev_##level(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); > > > > > \ > > > > > } while (0) > > > > > > > > > > #define dev_emerg_ratelimited(dev, fmt, ...) > > > > > \ > > > > > dev_ratelimited_level(dev, emerg, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__) > [...] > > > > > #define dev_dbg_ratelimited(dev, fmt, ...) > > > > > \ > > > > > dev_ratelimited_level(dev, dbg, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > > > > > > > "dev" isn't handled separately with __VA_ARGS__, and failed to build > > > > as below: > > > > > > > > Example: > > > > dev_err_ratelimited(&pdev->dev, "%d\n", __LINE__); > > > > > > > > After preprocessded: > > > > do { ... if (___ratelimit(&_rs, __func__)) dev_err("%d\n", 18); } > > > > while (0); > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I was just typing in the email client and > > > I missed the "dev" argument. > > > > > > Add "dev" to the dev_##level statement like: > > > > > > #define dev_ratelimited_level(dev, level, fmt, ...) > > > \ > > > do { > > > \ > > > static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(_rs, \ > > > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL, \ > > > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST); \ > > > if (__ratelimit(&_rs)) \ > > > dev_##level(dev, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ > > > } while (0) > > > > Verified that the above works. Would you mind sending the complete version > > of this patch? > > Hello Hiroshi. > > It's your patch and your idea. > I think you should submit it. > You were just asking for alternatives or a bit > of guidance. Thanks. > Maybe a better name for dev_ratelimited_level is > dev_level_ratelimited and the macro should be > > #define dev_level_ratelimited(dev_level, dev, fmt, ...) > \ > do { \ > static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(_rs, \ > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL, \ > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST); \ > if (__ratelimit(&_rs)) \ > dev_level(dev, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ > } while (0) > > with uses like > > #define dev_notice_ratelimited(dev, fmt, ...) \ > dev_level_ratelimited(dev_notice, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > > Your choice though I think the last option above > may be better because it more closely follows the > style a dev_printk_ratelimited would use. Agree. The complete version of the above patch follows this email. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
