Re: [PATCH 00/23 v2] cleanup: introduce br/netdev/netif/wiphy_<foo>_ratelimited() and use them to simplify code

Re: [PATCH 00/23 v2] cleanup: introduce br/netdev/netif/wiphy_<foo>_ratelimited() and use them to simplify code

[Joe Perches]

(resending to lists only because of multiple X's in the subject line)

On Fri, 2013-10-18 at 11:52 +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> v1-v2:
> 
>   Introduce macro br/netdev/netif/wiphy_XXX_ratelimited() according
>   to Joe Perches's advice. The macros are similar to net_XXX_ratelimited()
>   which is more clarifying than net_ratelimited_function(), then use them
>   to simplify code.

There are some conceptual differences between these
implementations and other <foo>_ratelimited uses.

For every other subsystem but net, there is a per-location
struct ratelimit_state.

Here you've made the global net_ratelimit_state replace all
of these individual structs so there is some new interaction.

Dunno if that's good or bad.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 00/23 v2] cleanup: introduce br/netdev/netif/wiphy_<foo>_ratelimited() and use them to simplify code

[Kefeng Wang]

On 10/18 12:11, Joe Perches wrote:
> (resending to lists only because of multiple X's in the subject line)
> 
> On Fri, 2013-10-18 at 11:52 +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>> v1-v2:
>>
>>   Introduce macro br/netdev/netif/wiphy_XXX_ratelimited() according
>>   to Joe Perches's advice. The macros are similar to net_XXX_ratelimited()
>>   which is more clarifying than net_ratelimited_function(), then use them
>>   to simplify code.
> 
> There are some conceptual differences between these
> implementations and other <foo>_ratelimited uses.
> 
> For every other subsystem but net, there is a per-location
> struct ratelimit_state.

yes, but I think I just changed net subsystem. Macro DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE used
DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL and DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST, so what do you think?
Could anyone give me some advises ?

> Here you've made the global net_ratelimit_state replace all
> of these individual structs so there is some new interaction.
> 
> Dunno if that's good or bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>