On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 10:53:55PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Yes, this is new in next. As far as I can see, the new message would only
> appear if we would call ratelimit_state_exit. Correct? We do not call this -
> I assume this is ok?
Right, the idea for the /dev/kmsg use case was to
On 07/05/2016 11:14 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 05/07/2016 22:53, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> Yes, this is new in next. As far as I can see, the new message would only
>> appear if we would call ratelimit_state_exit. Correct? We do not call this -
>> I assume this is ok?
>>
>> We really
On 05/07/2016 22:53, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Yes, this is new in next. As far as I can see, the new message would only
> appear if we would call ratelimit_state_exit. Correct? We do not call this -
> I assume this is ok?
>
> We really only want to reuse the rate limit base code (to avoid
On 07/05/2016 10:08 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-07-05 at 15:49 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 21:42:45 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 02:57:32PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Perhaps we should show both, unless you don't think this will e
On Tue, 2016-07-05 at 15:49 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 21:42:45 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 02:57:32PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should show both, unless you don't think this will ever be
> > > used by anything other than devk
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 21:42:45 +0200
Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 02:57:32PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Perhaps we should show both, unless you don't think this will ever be
> > used by anything other than devkmsg?
>
> I'd say let's do it only when we go down that road a
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 02:57:32PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Perhaps we should show both, unless you don't think this will ever be
> used by anything other than devkmsg?
I'd say let's do it only when we go down that road and start using it
for something else.
Because, for example, the rateli
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 20:45:17 +0200
Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 02:26:48PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > + if (rs->missed)
> > > + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: %d output lines suppressed due to
> > > ratelimiting\n",
> > > +current->comm, rs->missed);
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 02:26:48PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > + if (rs->missed)
> > + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: %d output lines suppressed due to
> > ratelimiting\n",
> > + current->comm, rs->missed);
>
> Is the comm important?
Yes, we wanna dump the task name w
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:24:51 +0200
Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov
>
> Extend the ratelimiting facility to print the amount of suppressed lines
> when it is being released.
>
> Separated from a previous patch by Linus.
>
> Also, make the ON_RELEASE image not use "callbacks" as
From: Borislav Petkov
Extend the ratelimiting facility to print the amount of suppressed lines
when it is being released.
Separated from a previous patch by Linus.
Also, make the ON_RELEASE image not use "callbacks" as it is misleading.
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds
11 matches
Mail list logo
