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.
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)+ 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.
+} + 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
