From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] net: Use net_<level>_ratelimit
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:29:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <20120515.142922.1434224550630736456.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20120515.134531.530903973750646107.davem@davemloft.net>
	<1337104765.7050.24.camel@joe2Laptop>
	<1337106430.15553.6.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org, linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, coreteam-Cap9r6Oaw4JrovVCs/uTlw@public.gmane.org,
	netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-decnet-user-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org,
	linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	linux-sctp-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, netfilter-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	netfilter-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, joe-6d6DIl74uiNBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org
To: johannes-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <1337106430.15553.6.camel-8upI4CBIZJIJvtFkdXX2HixXY32XiHfO@public.gmane.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://openvswitch.org/mailman/options/dev>,
	<mailto:dev-request-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev>
List-Post: <mailto:dev-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev>,
	<mailto:dev-request-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dev-bounces-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org
Errors-To: dev-bounces-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

From: Johannes Berg <johannes-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org>
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.