On Tue, Nov 07 2006, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 22:00 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > So, again, I'll ask James' (this time cc'ed) opinion on what he thinks. > > Perhaps he agrees that we should go the ratelimit route, or perhaps he > > likes your version. If the former, I'll be happy to code that up > > (should be a 1 minute job). > > I agree we should be using the standard tools rather than inventing our > own, so printk_ratelimit() would be the correct way to do this. Alright, then it turns into something like this: ----- [SCSI] Rate limit IO reject messages Otherwise we can flood the system with messages when a device is removed. Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c index d2c02df..a935b9d 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c @@ -1149,7 +1149,8 @@ static int scsi_prep_fn(struct request_q specials_only == SDEV_BLOCK) goto defer; - sdev_printk(KERN_ERR, sdev, + if (printk_ratelimit()) + sdev_printk(KERN_ERR, sdev, "rejecting I/O to device being removed\n"); goto kill; } -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
