Petr Mladek wrote: > On Sun 2024-10-20 21:49:50, Ira Weiny wrote: > > Dan Williams wrote: > > > Ira Weiny wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst b/Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst > > > > index 14e093da3ccd..e1ebf0376154 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst > > > > +++ b/Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst > > > > @@ -231,6 +231,19 @@ width of the CPU data path. > > > > > > > > Passed by reference. > > > > > > > > +Struct Range > > > > +------------ > > > > + > > > > +:: > > > > + > > > > + %pra [range 0x0000000060000000-0x000000006fffffff] > > > > + %pra [range 0x0000000060000000] > > > > + > > > > +For printing struct range. struct range holds an arbitrary range of u64 > > > > +values. If start is equal to end only print the start value. > > > > > > I was going to say "why this special case that does not exist for the > > > %pr case?", but then checked the code and found it *does* do this for %pr. > > > So if you're going to document this special case for %pra might as well > > > update the documentation for %pr too. > > > > > > Alternatively, drop the new %pra documentation for this corner case as > > > accommodating the U64_MAX size range case is arguably a mistake in the > > > caller. > > > > > > Either way, just make it consistent. > > > > I've dropped the special case in the documentation. > > I would actually prefer the opposite and update the %pr documentation. > > The behavior might be surprising and people should beware of it, > for example when writing a parser for the output. Works for me. I added a patch to enhance %pr and left in the %pra doc. Ira
