Posted Jan 15, 2004 19:47 UTC (Thu) by sjmadsen
Parent article: Keeping printk() under control
My guess is that the answer to this question is somewhere in the kernel archives, but I'm too
lazy to go find it.
If printk_ratelimit() tells the caller not to print anything out, why can't the squelch be done in
printk() itself and thus avoid touching code everywhere else?
Yes, critical messages might be missed, but that is solved by always allowing messages at
KERN_ERR (or whatever) through, no matter what. Sure, it can be abused, but
printk_ratelimit() can be ignored, too.
to post comments)