On Mon 2024-08-26 16:17:52, Ira Weiny wrote:
> Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 03:23:50PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Thu 2024-08-22 21:10:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 12:53:32PM -0500, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > > > Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri 2024-08-16 09:44:10, Ira Weiny wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > > > + %par [range 0x60000000-0x6fffffff] or
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems that it is always 64-bit. It prints:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > struct range {
> > > > > > u64 start;
> > > > > > u64 end;
> > > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed. Thanks I should not have just copied/pasted.
> > > >
> > > > With that said, I'm not sure the %pa is a good placeholder for this ('a' stands
> > > > to "address" AFAIU). Perhaps this should go somewhere under %pr/%pR?
>
> I'm speaking a bit for Dan here but also the logical way I thought of
> things.
>
> 1) %p does not dictate anything about the format of the data. Rather
> indicates that what is passed is a pointer. Because we are passing a
> pointer to a range struct %pXX makes sense.
> 2) %pa indicates what follows is 'address'. This was a bit of creative
> license because, as I said in the commit message most of the time
> struct range contains an address range. So for this narrow use case it
> also makes sense.
> 3) %par r for range.
Yes. I got it.
Well, is struct range really used for addresses? It rather looks like
a range of any 64-bit values.
> %p[rR] is taken. %pra confuses things IMO.
Another variants might be %pr64 or %prange.
IMHO, there is no good solution. We are trying to find the least
bad one. The meaning should be as obvious and as least confusing
as possible.
Honestly, I do not have a strong opinion. I kind of like %prange ;-)
But I could live with all other variants, except for %pn mentioned below.
> > > The r/R in %pr/%pR actually stands for "resource".
> > >
> > > But "%ra" really looks like a better choice than "%par". Both
> > > "resource" and "range" starts with 'r'. Also the struct resource
> > > is printed as a range of values.
>
> %r could be used I think. But this breaks with the convention of passing a
> pointer and how to interpret it.
How exactly does it break the convention, please?
Do you passing a pointer to struct range instead of a pointer to
struct resource?
It should not be a big problem as long as the vsprintf() code is
able to guess the right pointer type from the %pXX modifier.
> The other idea I had, mentioned in the commit
> message was %pn. Meaning passed by pointer 'raNge'.
This looks like the worst variant to me.
> > Fine with me as long as it:
> > 1) doesn't collide with %pa namespace
> > 2) tries to deduplicate existing code as much as possible.
>
> Andy, I'm not quite following how you expect to share the code between
> resource_string() and range_string()?
>
> There is very little duplicated code. In fact with Petr's suggestions and some
> more work range_string() is quite simple:
>
> +static noinline_for_stack
> +char *range_string(char *buf, char *end, const struct range *range,
> + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt)
> +{
> +#define RANGE_DECODED_BUF_SIZE ((2 * sizeof(struct range)) + 4)
> +#define RANGE_PRINT_BUF_SIZE sizeof("[range -]")
> + char sym[RANGE_DECODED_BUF_SIZE + RANGE_PRINT_BUF_SIZE];
> + char *p = sym, *pend = sym + sizeof(sym);
> +
> + *p++ = '[';
> + p = string_nocheck(p, pend, "range ", default_str_spec);
> + p = special_hex_number(p, pend, range->start, sizeof(range->start));
> + *p++ = '-';
> + p = special_hex_number(p, pend, range->end, sizeof(range->end));
> + *p++ = ']';
> + *p = '\0';
> +
> + return string_nocheck(buf, end, sym, spec);
> +}
I agree that there is not much duplicated code in the end.
> Also this is the bulk of the patch except for documentation and the new
> testing code. [new patch below]
>
> Am I missing your point somehow? I considered cramming a struct range into a
> struct resource to let resource_string() process the data. But that would
> involve creating a new IORESOURCE_* flag (not ideal) and also does not allow
> for the larger u64 data in struct range should this be a 32 bit physical
> address config.
This would be nasty. I believe that this is not what Andy meant.
Best Regards,
Petr
PS: I have vacation until the end of the week, so my next eventual
reaction would be delayed.
