Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3 02/10] ras: acpi/apei: cper: generic error data entry v3 per ACPI 6.1 | From | "Baicar, Tyler" <> | Date | Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:18:58 -0600 |
| |
Hello Russell,
Thank you for the feedback! Responses below
On 10/11/2016 12:52 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:31:14PM -0600, Tyler Baicar wrote: >> +static void cper_estatus_print_section_v300(const char *pfx, >> + const struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *gdata) >> +{ >> + __u8 hour, min, sec, day, mon, year, century, *timestamp; >> + >> + if (gdata->validation_bits & ACPI_HEST_GEN_VALID_TIMESTAMP) { >> + timestamp = (__u8 *)&(gdata->time_stamp); >> + memcpy(&sec, timestamp, 1); >> + memcpy(&min, timestamp + 1, 1); >> + memcpy(&hour, timestamp + 2, 1); >> + memcpy(&day, timestamp + 4, 1); >> + memcpy(&mon, timestamp + 5, 1); >> + memcpy(&year, timestamp + 6, 1); >> + memcpy(¢ury, timestamp + 7, 1); > This is utterly silly. Why are you using memcpy() to access individual > bytes of a u8 pointer? What's wrong with: > > sec = timestamp[0]; > min = timestamp[1]; > hour = timestamp[2]; > day = timestamp[4]; > mon = timestamp[5]; > year = timestamp[6]; > century = timestamp[7]; > > or even do the conversion here: > > sec = bcd2bin(timestamp[0]); > ... etc ... Yes, that will be a lot cleaner especially with moving the conversion here. > >> + printk("%stime: ", pfx); >> + printk("%7s", 0x01 & *(timestamp + 3) ? "precise" : ""); >> + printk(" %02d:%02d:%02d %02d%02d-%02d-%02d\n", >> + bcd2bin(hour), bcd2bin(min), bcd2bin(sec), >> + bcd2bin(century), bcd2bin(year), bcd2bin(mon), >> + bcd2bin(day)); >> + } > It's also a good idea to (as much as possible) keep to single printk() > statements - which makes the emission of the string more atomic wrt > other CPUs and contexts. So, this should probably become (with the > conversion being done at the assignment of sec etc): > > printk("%stime: %7s %02d:%02d:%02d %02d%02d-%02d-%02d\n", > pfx, 0x01 & timestamp[3] ? "precise" : "", > hour, min, sec, century, year, mon, day); > > which, IMHO, looks a lot nicer and doesn't risk some other printk() > getting between each individual part of the line. I will make this change in the next version. This printk does look a lot nicer and avoids other prints from getting in the middle (I actually just saw that happen in testing a couple days ago) >> +} >> + >> static void cper_estatus_print_section( >> - const char *pfx, const struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int sec_no) >> + const char *pfx, struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int sec_no) >> { >> uuid_le *sec_type = (uuid_le *)gdata->section_type; >> __u16 severity; >> char newpfx[64]; >> >> + if ((gdata->revision >> 8) >= 0x03) >> + cper_estatus_print_section_v300(pfx, >> + (const struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *)gdata); >> + >> severity = gdata->error_severity; >> printk("%s""Error %d, type: %s\n", pfx, sec_no, >> cper_severity_str(severity)); > Not sure why you have the "" here - %sError works just as well and the > "" is just obfuscation - the compiler will eliminate the double-double > quote and merge the strings anyway. > I will remove the "" in the next version.
Thanks, Tyler
-- Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
| |