On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 don't think so. It wasn't enough messages to DoS the system. Just enough messages to annoy me. That said, If the general feeling is that we should really be seeing more than the first message, I'm okay with the ratelimit too. > -- > I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this > signature is too narrow to contain. > > -- Glauber Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act." _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
