Glauber Costa wrote: >> >> I've changed it to use printk_ratelimit(). >> > > I've tested this option here before sending out the patch, since it > would address all issues. > > But in error cases, it still seemed to generate too many messages. > > Isn't that a bug in printk_ratelimit(), then? -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
