- Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] net: Use net_<level>_ratelimit
- From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:29:22 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: joe@xxxxxxxxxxx, 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: <1337106430.15553.6.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 20:27:10 +0200
> 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()?
printk_ratelimited() drops a local ratelimit cookie into each call-site,
whereas we have a global one for the networking which these new interfaces
use.
Joe explained this completely in his 0/2 patch posting.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Linux Netfilter Development]
[Linux Kernel Networking Development]
[Linux Networking Development]
[Linux Kernel Development]
[Linux Resources]
[LARTC]
[Bugtraq]
[Consulting]
[Free Internet Dating]
[Yosemite Forum]
[Photo]