On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 1:18 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 01:07:38PM +0530, Ghanshyam Agrawal wrote:
> > The function stk1160_dbg gets called too many times, which causes
> > the output to get flooded with messages. Since stk1160_dbg uses
> > printk, it is now replaced with printk_ratelimited directly.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Phillip Potter <phil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Ghanshyam Agrawal <ghanshyam1898@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > V3:
> > Fixed the issue with my patch needing previous versions being applied
> > first.
> >
> > Used printk_ratelimited instead of dev_warn_ratelimited because
> > of compiler error "incompatible pointer type".
> >
> > V2:
> > To add KERN_WARNING in printk_ratelimited, and later as per warning by
> > the checkpatch script, replaced printk_ratelimited with
> > dev_warn_ratelimited.
> >
> > V1:
> > The function stk1160_dbg gets called too many times, which causes
> > the output to get flooded with messages. Since stk1160_dbg uses
> > printk, it is now replaced with dev_warn_ratelimited.
> >
> > drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c | 5 ++---
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c b/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c
> > index 4e966f6bf608..98417fa31d70 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-video.c
> > @@ -107,8 +107,7 @@ void stk1160_copy_video(struct stk1160 *dev, u8 *src, int len)
> >
> > /*
> > * TODO: These stk1160_dbg are very spammy!
> > - * We should 1) check why we are getting them
> > - * and 2) add ratelimit.
> > + * We should check why we are getting them.
> > *
> > * UPDATE: One of the reasons (the only one?) for getting these
> > * is incorrect standard (mismatch between expected and configured).
> > @@ -151,7 +150,7 @@ void stk1160_copy_video(struct stk1160 *dev, u8 *src, int len)
> >
> > /* Let the bug hunt begin! sanity checks! */
> > if (lencopy < 0) {
> > - stk1160_dbg("copy skipped: negative lencopy\n");
> > + printk_ratelimited(KERN_WARNING "copy skipped: negative lencopy\n");
>
> You changed a debug message level to a KERN_WARNING level? That feels
> like a step backwards.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your response. The log level should indeed be DEBUG
as it was earlier.
I only wanted to add a rate limit there because it was printing too
many log messages as mentioned in the todo. Shall I update the
log level to DEBUG and resend the patch? Thank you very much
again.
Regards,
Ghanshyam Agrawal
