Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANEJEGvKRVGLYPmD3kujg6veq5KR7J+rAu6ni92wUz72KGtyBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230407194645.GA3814486@bhelgaas>
In-Reply-To: <20230407194645.GA3814486@bhelgaas>
From:   Grant Grundler <grundler@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 17 May 2023 23:11:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CANEJEGscz3F-6cZcp7dBVekpxHMNXZWgUW2ic3xd6hm3xWH6ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 pci-next 2/2] PCI/AER: Rate limit the reporting of the
 correctable errors
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc:     Grant Grundler <grundler@chromium.org>,
        Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Oliver O 'Halloran" <oohall@gmail.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Rajat Jain <rajatja@chromium.org>,
        Rajat Khandelwal <rajat.khandelwal@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 12:46=E2=80=AFPM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> =
wrote:
...
> But I don't think we need output in a single step; we just need a
> single instance of ratelimit_state (or one for CPER path and another
> for native AER path), and that can control all the output for a single
> error.  E.g., print_hmi_event_info() looks like this:
>
>   static void print_hmi_event_info(...)
>   {
>     static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(rs, ...);
>
>     if (__ratelimit(&rs)) {
>       printk("%s%s Hypervisor Maintenance interrupt ...");
>       printk("%s Error detail: %s\n", ...);
>       printk("%s      HMER: %016llx\n", ...);
>     }
>   }
>
> I think it's nice that the struct ratelimit_state is explicit and
> there's no danger of breaking it when adding another printk later.

Since the output is spread across at least two functions, I think your
proposal is a better solution.

I'm not happy with the patch series I sent in my previous reply as an
attachment. It's only marginally better than the original code.

I need another day or two to see if I can implement your proposal correctly=
.

cheers,
grant