[plain text only this time...]
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:11 PM Grant Grundler <grundler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 12:46 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.
Despite not being happy about it, after a week of vacation I now think
it would be better to include them as is since they solve the
immediate problems and then solve the above two issues in additional
patches. The two changes I have prepared so far correctly fix the
original issues they intended to fix and don't affect the new issues
we've found.
I'll post a V3 of this series tonight after making sure it at least
compiles and "looks right".
cheers,
grant
>
> I need another day or two to see if I can implement your proposal correctly.
>
> cheers,
> grant
