On 26 February 2018 at 16:00, Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2018 11:40 AM >> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: linux-efi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux- >> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>; the arch/x86 >> maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Info Structure >> > ... >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper- >> x86.c >> > index b50ee3cdf637..9d608f742c98 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c >> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c >> > @@ -4,15 +4,28 @@ >> > >> > #include <linux/cper.h> >> > >> > +#define INDENT_SP " " >> > + >> > /* >> > * We don't need a "CPER_IA" prefix since these are all locally defined. >> > * This will save us a lot of line space. >> > */ >> > #define VALID_LAPIC_ID BIT_ULL(0) >> > #define VALID_CPUID_INFO BIT_ULL(1) >> > +#define VALID_PROC_ERR_INFO_NUM(bits) ((bits & GENMASK_ULL(7, 2)) >> >> 2) >> > + >> >> Parens around 'bits' please >> > > Like this? > > #define VALID_PROC_ERR_INFO_NUM(bits) (((bits) & GENMASK_ULL(7, 2)) >> 2) > Yes. Your code currently does not pass expressions into these, but it is good form to use parens here to make them future proof > I'll do the same for the others. > Cheers >> > +#define INFO_VALID_CHECK_INFO BIT_ULL(0) >> > +#define INFO_VALID_TARGET_ID BIT_ULL(1) >> > +#define INFO_VALID_REQUESTOR_ID BIT_ULL(2) >> > +#define INFO_VALID_RESPONDER_ID BIT_ULL(3) >> > +#define INFO_VALID_IP BIT_ULL(4) >> > >> > void cper_print_proc_ia(const char *pfx, const struct cper_sec_proc_ia >> *proc) >> > { >> > + int i; >> > + struct cper_ia_err_info *err_info; >> > + char newpfx[64]; >> > + >> > printk("%sValidation Bits: 0x%016llx\n", pfx, proc->validation_bits); >> > >> > if (proc->validation_bits & VALID_LAPIC_ID) >> > @@ -23,4 +36,44 @@ void cper_print_proc_ia(const char *pfx, const struct >> cper_sec_proc_ia *proc) >> > print_hex_dump(pfx, "", DUMP_PREFIX_OFFSET, 16, 4, proc- >> >cpuid, >> > sizeof(proc->cpuid), 0); >> > } >> > + >> > + snprintf(newpfx, sizeof(newpfx), "%s%s", pfx, INDENT_SP); >> > + >> > + err_info = (struct cper_ia_err_info *)(proc + 1); >> > + for (i = 0; i < VALID_PROC_ERR_INFO_NUM(proc->validation_bits); i++) >> { >> > + printk("%sError Information Structure %d:\n", pfx, i); >> > + >> > + printk("%sError Structure Type: %pUl\n", newpfx, >> > + &err_info->err_type); >> > + >> >> The indentation is a bit awkward here. Could you please align followup >> lines with the character following the ( on the first line? >> > > Yes, will do. > >> > + printk("%sValidation Bits: 0x%016llx\n", >> > + newpfx, err_info->validation_bits); >> > + >> > + if (err_info->validation_bits & INFO_VALID_CHECK_INFO) { >> > + printk("%sCheck Information: 0x%016llx\n", newpfx, >> > + err_info->check_info); >> > + } >> > + >> > + if (err_info->validation_bits & INFO_VALID_TARGET_ID) { >> > + printk("%sTarget Identifier: 0x%016llx\n", >> > + newpfx, err_info->target_id); >> > + } >> > + >> > + if (err_info->validation_bits & INFO_VALID_REQUESTOR_ID) { >> > + printk("%sRequestor Identifier: 0x%016llx\n", >> > + newpfx, err_info->requestor_id); >> > + } >> > + >> > + if (err_info->validation_bits & INFO_VALID_RESPONDER_ID) { >> > + printk("%sResponder Identifier: 0x%016llx\n", >> > + newpfx, err_info->responder_id); >> > + } >> > + >> > + if (err_info->validation_bits & INFO_VALID_IP) { >> > + printk("%sInstruction Pointer: 0x%016llx\n", >> > + newpfx, err_info->ip); >> > + } >> > + >> > + err_info++; >> > + } >> > } >> > -- >> > 2.14.1 >> > -- 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
