From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:41074 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966047Ab2EOSc1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2012 14:32:27 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:30:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20120515.143009.2103212327515966852.davem@davemloft.net> To: johannes@sipsolutions.net Cc: joe@perches.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-decnet-user@lists.sourceforge.net, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, dev@openvswitch.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] net: Use net__ratelimit From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1337106548.15553.8.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> References: <1337106094.15553.5.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <20120515.142405.633851408201128056.davem@davemloft.net> <1337106548.15553.8.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Johannes Berg Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 20:29:08 +0200 > On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 14:24 -0400, David Miller wrote: > >> > But don't you have to do something in the sources to actually get >> > dynamic_debug enabled? I'm concerned this will make mac80211 debugging >> > inconsistent - the normal bits are just printk() still, and the >> > rate-limited bits need some special enabling? That seems odd. >> >> You can turn them all off or on with a simple flip of a boolean switch >> at run-time. Or, alternatively, you can turn them on or off in a >> finer grained manner with other run-time facilities. >> >> There should be a transition away from explicit KERN_DEBUG. > > I support that, but I think it's confusing to have things mixed. Also, > we seem to have printk_ratelimit(), so I'd prefer to have that used in > mac80211 instead until everything there moves over to newer facilities. No, you don't want that, it's different from the networking ratelimit mechanism. Joe explained this, and I just explaing it to you once again in another reply.