* Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote:
> +/* issue num suppressed message on exit */
> +#define RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE BIT(0)
So this flag says that we should issue a ratelimit message when it occurs.
> +static inline void ratelimit_state_exit(struct ratelimit_state *rs)
> +{
> + if (!(rs->flags & RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE))
> + return;
> +
> + if (rs->missed)
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: %d callbacks suppressed\n",
> + current->comm, rs->missed);
... here we print the message if the RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE bit is set.
> +++ b/lib/ratelimit.c
> @@ -46,12 +46,14 @@ int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char
> *func)
> rs->begin = jiffies;
>
> if (time_is_before_jiffies(rs->begin + rs->interval)) {
> - if (rs->missed)
> + if (rs->missed && !(rs->flags & RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE))
> printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: %d callbacks suppressed\n",
> func, rs->missed);
But here we print the message if the RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE bit is zero.
Is that intentional?
Also, while we are changing it, I'd like to suggest a different message - it's
talking about 'callbacks' but there's no callback here - we are skipping kernel
log messages. So how about:
pr_warn("%s: %d kernel log lines skipped, due to rate-limiting.\n"
Thanks,
Ingo
