Re: [PATCH 4/4] printk: miscellaneous cleanups

[Alex Elder]

On 07/09/2014 11:29 AM, Petr Mládek wrote:
> Sending once again as a correct reply. I am sorry for the
> confusion. I think that it is high time for me to go home and sleep :-)
>
> On Wed 2014-07-09 08:04:16, Alex Elder wrote:
> > This patch contains some small cleanups to kernel/printk/printk.c.
> > None of them should cause any change in behavior.
> >    - When CONFIG_PRINTK is defined, parenthesize the value of LOG_LINE_MAX.
> >    - When CONFIG_PRINTK is *not* defined, there is an extra LOG_LINE_MAX
> >      definition; delete it.
> >    - Pull an assignment out of a conditional expression in console_setup().
> >    - Use isdigit() in console_setup() rather than open coding it.
> >    - In update_console_cmdline(), drop a NUL-termination assignment;
> >      the strlcpy() call that precedes it guarantees it's not needed.
> >    - Simplify some logic in printk_timed_ratelimit().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   kernel/printk/printk.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
> >   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > index 6f75e8a..909029e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c

. . .

> > @@ -2611,14 +2612,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__printk_ratelimit);
> >   bool printk_timed_ratelimit(unsigned long *caller_jiffies,
> >   			unsigned int interval_msecs)
> >   {
> > -	if (*caller_jiffies == 0
> > -			|| !time_in_range(jiffies, *caller_jiffies,
> > -					*caller_jiffies
> > -					+ msecs_to_jiffies(interval_msecs))) {
> > -		*caller_jiffies = jiffies;
> > -		return true;
> > -	}
> > -	return false;
> > +	unsigned long elapsed = jiffies - *caller_jiffies;

Currently, all callers pass a 0 value in *caller_jiffies
initially (using a static/BSS variable), and a value updated
by a previous call to __printk_ratelimit() thereafter.

If a caller passed something different, yes, it's possible the
result would wrap to a high unsigned value (i.e., go negative).
However the logic used here involves the same subtraction
operation as was used before--though previously that was
buried inside the time_after() macro called by time_in_range().

					-Alex

> I wondered if the deduction might be negative. Well, it should not be
> if none manipulates *caller_jiffies in a strange way. If it happens,
> the following condition will most likely fail and *caller_jiffies will
> get reset to jiffies. It looks reasonable to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxx>
>
> > +	if (*caller_jiffies && elapsed <= msecs_to_jiffies(interval_msecs))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	*caller_jiffies = jiffies;
> > +	return true;
> >   }
> >   EXPORT_SYMBOL(printk_timed_ratelimit);
>
> Best Regards,
> Petr

--
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/