Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753218Ab2ENGFm (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 May 2012 02:05:42 -0400 Received: from perches-mx.perches.com ([206.117.179.246]:36828 "EHLO labridge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751819Ab2ENGFl (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 May 2012 02:05:41 -0400 Message-ID: <1336975539.2656.21.camel@joe2Laptop> Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] driver core: Add dev_*_ratelimited() family From: Joe Perches To: Hiroshi Doyu Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 23:05:39 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20120514.084014.1683295633804914511.hdoyu@nvidia.com> References: <1336836695.17605.12.camel@joe2Laptop> <20120514.080008.1401340884821155549.hdoyu@nvidia.com> <1336973155.2656.10.camel@joe2Laptop> <20120514.084014.1683295633804914511.hdoyu@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3025 Lines: 87 On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 07:40 +0200, Hiroshi Doyu wrote: > Joe Perches wrote @ Mon, 14 May 2012 07:25:55 +0200: > > On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 07:00 +0200, Hiroshi Doyu wrote: > > > Joe Perches wrote @ Sat, 12 May 2012 17:31:35 +0200: > > > > On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 12:52 +0200, Hiroshi Doyu wrote: > > > > > An unclosed "if" statement in the MACRO seems a bit risky, but I don't > > > > > have any better/simple solution for this, ATM. Is there any alternative? > > > > > > > > maybe something like: > > > > > > > > #define dev_ratelimited_level(dev, level, fmt, ...) > > > > do { > > > > static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(_rs, \ > > > > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL, \ > > > > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST); \ > > > > if (__ratelimit(&_rs)) \ > > > > dev_##level(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ > > > > } while (0) > > > > > > > > #define dev_emerg_ratelimited(dev, fmt, ...) \ > > > > dev_ratelimited_level(dev, emerg, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__) [...] > > > > #define dev_dbg_ratelimited(dev, fmt, ...) \ > > > > dev_ratelimited_level(dev, dbg, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > > > > > "dev" isn't handled separately with __VA_ARGS__, and failed to build > > > as below: > > > > > > Example: > > > dev_err_ratelimited(&pdev->dev, "%d\n", __LINE__); > > > > > > After preprocessded: > > > do { ... if (___ratelimit(&_rs, __func__)) dev_err("%d\n", 18); } while (0); > > > > > > > Sorry, I was just typing in the email client and > > I missed the "dev" argument. > > > > Add "dev" to the dev_##level statement like: > > > > #define dev_ratelimited_level(dev, level, fmt, ...) \ > > do { \ > > static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(_rs, \ > > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL, \ > > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST); \ > > if (__ratelimit(&_rs)) \ > > dev_##level(dev, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ > > } while (0) > > Verified that the above works. Would you mind sending the complete version of this patch? Hello Hiroshi. It's your patch and your idea. I think you should submit it. You were just asking for alternatives or a bit of guidance. Maybe a better name for dev_ratelimited_level is dev_level_ratelimited and the macro should be #define dev_level_ratelimited(dev_level, dev, fmt, ...) \ do { \ static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(_rs, \ DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL, \ DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST); \ if (__ratelimit(&_rs)) \ dev_level(dev, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ } while (0) with uses like #define dev_notice_ratelimited(dev, fmt, ...) \ dev_level_ratelimited(dev_notice, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__) Your choice though I think the last option above may be better because it more closely follows the style a dev_printk_ratelimited would use. cheers, Joe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/