On 02/09/16 13:20, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory) <elliott@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Matt Fleming [mailto:matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 5:28 AM >>> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@xxxxxxxxxx>; H . Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>; >>> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-efi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- >>> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory) >>> <elliott@xxxxxxx>; Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; >>> Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx>; Taku Izumi >>> <izumi.taku@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux- >>> foundation.org>; Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] x86/efi: Print size in binary units in >>> efi_print_memmap >> ... >>> OK, this patch has caused enough headaches. Let's drop it from this >>> series. >>> >>> Robert, Andy, feel free to resubmit it after you've addressed >>> everyone's concerns and we can discuss it in isolation. >> >> We could just delete the size print altogether - better to print >> nothing than a silently rounded number. The end address already >> communicates the size - it's just not as readable. >> >> The e820 table prints don't bother with a size print. >> >> That would also shorten these extremely wide prints to 116 >> characters (131 if printk time is enabled). >> >> [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000001880000000-0x000000207fffffff] reserved >> vs. >> [ 0.000000] efi: mem62: [Reserved | | |NV| | | | | |WB|WT|WC|UC] range=[0x0000001880000000-0x000000207fffffff] (32 GiB) > > So I find the latter a lot more readable - my terminals are wide enough ;-) > > Humans are also rather bad at parsing 64-bit hexa address ranges at a glance, so > the size display is very useful. > > But the flags portion should be shortened via appropriately chosen > single-character abbreviations for the flags. Anyone deeply intimate with the code > will recognize the flags - others won't care one way or another. > > plus there's no need to write out 'range='. > > ... and please keep the size and just use GB/TB for chrissake. > > I.e. something like this would work for me: > >> [ 0.000000] efi: mem62: 0x0000001880000000-0x000000207fffffff ( 32 GB) .N....BTCU "Reserved" Sorry to disagree :), but I count myself somewhat intimate with UEFI (albeit more from the edk2 side), and while I can make sense of |NV| | | | | |WB|WT|WC|UC] I find .N....BTCU mostly undecipherable. :) My original goal with this printout was to (a) provide a good impression of the entire UEFI memmap, at a glance, (b) provide sufficient detail per-entry, if necessary. (I don't exactly recall why I was staring at the UEFI memmap dump at that time, maybe I was working on S3 in OVMF which took a lot of memmap massaging, or debugging some bug; either way my eyes were bleeding trying to decode the numeric attributes.) My xterm, maximized, has 239 columns, which I think counts as pretty low for today's resolutions. It is nonetheless plenty wide for the current output. Given that we print this stuff only when debugging information is requested, I feel that the value of the current columnar output, in which I can follow a single attribute with my eye across all entries, should not be diminished, by compressing the columns. I'm not a wide screen maniac; for example I insist on source code being wrapped at 79 characters, commit messages at 74, emails at 72 (except diagrams and log excerpts), and so on. But debug output is different. My 2 cents, of course... Thanks Laszlo -- 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
