Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:58:12 +0200 | From | "Frédéric Weisbecker" <> | Subject | Re: [patch] fix printk format typo in boot ftracer. |
| |
2008/10/4 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>: > When printing nanoseconds, the right printk format string is %09 not %06... > > Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_boot.c b/kernel/trace/trace_boot.c > index a7efe35..d0a5e50 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_boot.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_boot.c > @@ -62,14 +62,14 @@ static enum print_line_t initcall_print_line(struct trace_iterator *iter) > struct timespec rettime = ktime_to_timespec(it->rettime); > > if (entry->type == TRACE_BOOT) { > - ret = trace_seq_printf(s, "[%5ld.%06ld] calling %s @ %i\n", > + ret = trace_seq_printf(s, "[%5ld.%09ld] calling %s @ %i\n", > calltime.tv_sec, > calltime.tv_nsec, > it->func, it->caller); > if (!ret) > return TRACE_TYPE_PARTIAL_LINE; > > - ret = trace_seq_printf(s, "[%5ld.%06ld] initcall %s " > + ret = trace_seq_printf(s, "[%5ld.%09ld] initcall %s " > "returned %d after %lld msecs\n", > rettime.tv_sec, > rettime.tv_nsec,
I picked these formats from the printk.c time formatting. But you're right, 09 would give us the whole nano precision.
| |