From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754606AbZLTVHA (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:07:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753196AbZLTVG6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:06:58 -0500 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:54936 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753615AbZLTVG5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:06:57 -0500 Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:06:50 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] [1/2] SYSCTL: Make bin_table not const Message-ID: <20091220210650.GA5143@basil.fritz.box> References: <20091219358.549678091@firstfloor.org> <20091219145832.A0424B158A@basil.firstfloor.org> <20091219211831.GA19716@basil.fritz.box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Is printk_ratelimit truly ineffective at what it does? > > Arguably we don't need to warn anywhere near that often, so even > if printk_ratelimit works we are good. > > If printk_ratelimit let's too much through we really should also write > a patch to let fewer messages through that way. Any time based rate is too much for compatibility. Assume even if you only printed one per hour and the user keeps running a program that uses sysctl it would still be >5000 messages each month. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.