On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 17:49 -0600, Hawkes Steve-FSH016 wrote:
> Are you saying the few lines of code to handle changes to the tunables
> aren't worth keeping?
Yes.
I think the tunables, if needed at all, should be set by modifying
the struct and the call might as well be:
bool
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
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: "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
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,
> > > +
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
---
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
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 17:49 -0600, Hawkes Steve-FSH016 wrote:
Are you saying the few lines of code to handle changes to the tunables
aren't worth keeping?
Yes.
I think the tunables, if needed at all, should be set by modifying
the struct and the call might as well be:
bool
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: 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,
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 ? :
14 matches
Mail list logo
