On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 14:38 -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 08:31:06 -0700 > > My suggestion would be to see about again adding > > #include <linux/ratelimit.h> somehow > > back to kernel.h which commit 3fff4c42bd0a removed > > in 2009 because of the spinlock issues. > > Any suggestion on how best to fix it generically? > I don't think we want spinlock_t's definition being sucked > into kernel.h's dependency food chain. > Even if desirable, I think it'd be quite a bit of surgery, > too much to do at this stage. > So for now how about we make the ratelimit warn interfaces be a true, > instead of a pseudo, dependency on ratelimit.h by moving those > definitions into ratelimit.h? Thanks, I suppose that's good enough for now. Perhaps it'd also be good to move the pr_<level>_ratelimited declarations from printk.h. It seems that would not cause new compilation problems. $ grep -rP --include=*.[ch] -wl "pr_[a-z]+_ratelimited" * | \ xargs grep -L "include.*ratelimit\.h" include/linux/printk.h And, though it's sure to cause some compilation problems: $ grep -rP --include=*.[ch] -wl "printk_ratelimit" * | \ xargs grep -L "include.*ratelimit\.h" | wc -l 127 Perhaps it'd also be good to move the printk_ratelimit block from printk.h into ratelimited.h and add #include <linux/ratelimited.h> to the current source files that use it in a later patchset. Maybe Jiri could pick it up through trivial. Jiri? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
