>> +static u64 efi_generate_id(unsigned long timestamp, unsigned int part, int count)
I don't think the "efi_" prefix is needed here. For one thing the
function is static, so
no name space pollution worries. For another - it makes it look like
this is some thing
defined in EFI standard. If "generate_id()" is too generic for your
tastes ... then a
"pstore_" prefix might be more appropriate.
>> +{
>> + char id_str[64];
>> + u64 id = 0;
>> +
>> + sprintf(id_str, "%lu%u%d", timestamp, part, count);
>> + if (kstrtoull(id_str, 10, &id))
>> + pr_warn("efi-pstore: failed to generate id\n");
>> + return id;
>> +}
>
> This is just odd. You make a string from three ints and then a parse
> it to a int again.
Agreed. I liked your ((timestamp * 100 + part) * 100 + count function much
more than this.
-Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
