> On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 16:11 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:59:29 -0700
> > Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 15:21 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:10:59 -0700
> > > > Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 15:02 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 14:51:01 -0700
> > > > > > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > > > I'll give up and pronounce that users of printk_ratelimited() need to
> > > > > > include ratelimit.h as well.
> > > > > What I suggested several months ago was to move the
> > > > > macro definitions to ratelimit.h
> > > > >
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/18/377
> > > > That's a bit nasty because at present ratelimit.h is purely about
> > > > ratelimiting and knowns nothing about any of its clients. At present
> > > > it has only one client (printk), but it could have more in the future!
> > >
> > > Look at the structure, it's very specific to
> > > message logging functionality.
> > >
> > > struct ratelimit_state {
> > > spinlock_t lock; /* protect the state */
> > >
> > > int interval;
> > > int burst;
> > > int printed;
> > > int missed;
> > > unsigned long begin;
> > > };
> >
> > s/printed/hit/there,fixed
> >
> > This is at present a quite general facility.
> >
> > > I think it's likely that the current ratelimit
> > > will not be used for any other function.
> >
> > Filling it up with printk-specific stuff will help ensure that.
>
> Interval too because it is in seconds and likely
> should be in timespec or jiffies.
