From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752732AbcGAKiI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 06:38:08 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:32842 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751994AbcGAKiF (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 06:38:05 -0400
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:38:01 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
	<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
        Franck Bui <fbui@suse.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 1/2] ratelimit: Extend to print suppressed messages
 on release
Message-ID: <20160701103801.GB12394@gmail.com>
References: <1467194161-1472-1-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de>
 <1467194161-1472-2-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de>
 <20160701082247.GA27709@gmail.com>
 <20160701090740.GB4593@pd.tnic>
 <20160701101743.GA8787@gmail.com>
 <20160701102936.GE4593@pd.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160701102936.GE4593@pd.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 12:17:43PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Yeah, indeed, you are right.
> 
> How about this though, still:
> 
> ratelimit_state_exit:
> 
>         if (rs->missed)
>                 printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: %d output lines suppressed due to ratelimiting\n",
>                        current->comm, rs->missed);
> 
> 
> I still think it is better than the "callbacks" thing as we're issuing
> it on release and there's not really a @func which callbacks we're
> limiting...

Yeah, indeed!

Thanks,

	Ingo