- To: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] net: Use net_<level>_ratelimit
- From: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 20:27:10 +0200
- Cc: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-decnet-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, coreteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-sctp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <1337104765.7050.24.camel@joe2Laptop> (sfid-20120515_195955_463081_DA730895)
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 10:59 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> OK, but fyi, there's a possible issue with !CONFIG_DEBUG
> builds because these patches converted some uses of
> if (net_ratelimit())
> printk(KERN_DEBUG ...
> to
> net_dbg_ratelimited()
>
> These messages are no longer emitted when DEBUG isn't defined
> and not using dynamic_debug. I'm not sure that's a real
> problem, but it's a difference.
>
> I could produce a net_printk_ratelimited that would keep
> the original behavior if necessary.
>
> net_printk_ratelimited(KERN_DEBUG etc...)
Btw, what would the difference be to just plain printk_ratelimited()?
johannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux Bluetooth]
[Linux Netdev]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Share Photos]
[IDE]
[Security]
[Git]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Yosemite]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Linux ATA RAID]
[Samba]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Device Mapper]
[Linux Resources]
[Free Dating]
[M2M Wireless]