RE: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunablebehavior

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:47 -0600, Hawkes Steve-FSH016 wrote:
> How about this?

line wrapped, but seems better.

> Signed-off-by: Steve Hawkes <steve.hawkes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> 
> diff -uprN linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h
> linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/include/linux/kernel.h
> --- linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h 2008-01-24 16:58:37.000000000
> + * This enforces a rate limit to mitigate denial-of-service attacks:
> + * not more than ratelimit_burst messages every ratelimit_jiffies.
>   */
> -int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int ratelimit_burst)
> +int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies,
> +                       int ratelimit_burst,
> +                       struct printk_ratelimit_state *state)

I think the value of in-place tunables is low.
I'd remove that bit and use the struct printk_ratelimit_state.

David Miller points out that struct initializations to 0 or NULL
are not necessary.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/