From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751649AbeEPUyl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 16 May 2018 16:54:41 -0400
Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:49874 "EHLO imap.thunk.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751013AbeEPUyk (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 16 May 2018 16:54:40 -0400
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 16:54:37 -0400
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 0x7f454c46@gmail.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] random: Omit double-printing ratelimit messages
Message-ID: <20180516205437.GB4378@thunk.org>
Mail-Followup-To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        0x7f454c46@gmail.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
References: <20180510125211.12583-1-dima@arista.com>
 <20180510125211.12583-2-dima@arista.com>
 <20180510181901.GG8335@thunk.org>
 <1525977460.28243.2.camel@arista.com>
 <20180510194041.GH8335@thunk.org>
 <1525981807.28243.9.camel@arista.com>
 <20180511035150.GJ8335@thunk.org>
 <1526042463.28243.21.camel@arista.com>
 <1526485573.28243.30.camel@arista.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1526485573.28243.30.camel@arista.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 04:46:13PM +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > Yeah, but what you print is not total sum, it's since the last
> > interval because without mentioned flag ___ratelimit() will flush
> > missed counter and print "suppressed" message.  They might even
> > double if say other proccess has called get_random_bytes() got to
> > ___ratelimit() and got preempted. This thread finishes
> > initializing random driver and prints this not-proper-sum
> > statistics, and when the code flow is back in the first context,
> > it will print statistics again from ___ratelimit() function.
> 
> So, does it make sense to you, Theodore?
> If not - I'll just resend second patch rebasing and dropping this one.

Yes, it's correct that it's not the total sum.  I guess your complaint
is that some of the messages are using the "callbacks suppressed"
message, and the last one is using the random drvier's custom message
which I think is much more user-friendly.  That being said, although I
think "callbacks suppressed is a terrible message, I agree that using
a single message makes more sense.  So setting the
RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE and then calling ratelimit_state_exit() from
crng_reseed() does make sense.

In the future I'd like to push for some way to customize --- or
perhaps just fix --- "callbacks suppressed" to something more sane
like, "messages ratelimited", but that's more of an aesthetics issue.

						- Ted