From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesper Juhl Subject: Re: [PATCH] kill massive wireless-related log spam Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:43:59 +0200 Message-ID: <9a8748490510261443y7ea58a8amcb928135db91cb4f@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051026042827.GA22836@havoc.gtf.org> <200510261704.15366.ak@suse.de> <9a8748490510260823s681a4d82k5efa5734486eda85@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Linux-Kernel , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: "J.A. Magallon" In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 10/26/05, J.A. Magallon wrote: > > On 2005.10.26, at 17:23, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > On 10/26/05, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > >> On Wednesday 26 October 2005 06:28, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Change this to printing out the message once, per kernel boot. > >>> > >> > >> It doesn't do that. It prints it once every 2^32 calls. Also > >> > > > > I noted that as well. How about just using something along the > > lines of > > > > static unsigned char printed_message = 0; > > if (!printed_message) { > > printk(...); > > printed_message++; > > } > > Sorry, but why not the old good > > printed_message = 1 > > ?? > What kind of microoptimization is that ? > Does it really matter? I needed to pick one of printed_message=1; or printed_message++; the end result is the same, so I just picked one at random. But now that you mention it, I guess ++ would turn into "inc" which should be faster than an assignment... but it *doesn't matter*... I was not trying to optimize anything, just make the code work properly - as in, only ever print the message once... -- Jesper Juhl Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html