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
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 ? :