On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On 07/24/2013 10:53 PM, Joe Perches wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 22:43 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: >>> >>> On 2013/07/22 11:01PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Borislav Petkov <b...@suse.de> >>>> >>>> [ 5.525861] ERST: Can not request iomem region <0x c7eff000-0x >>>> c7f00000> for ERST. >>>> >>>> This needs to have leading zeroes. Make it so. >> >> >> Why does it need leading zeros? >> >>> While looking at this, I noticed that we seem to be using varying field >>> widths in our APEI code: >>> - einj.c has two instances using %#010llx. >>> - apei-base.c uses widths of 10 (4 bytes) and 6 (2 bytes). >>> >>> Not sure if these are intentional and those fields truly aren't 64-bit >>> (as suggested by the usage of long long int). >> >> >> I suggest using "0x%llx" everywhere unless there's a >> compelling reason like columnar alignment for them. > > > I think that might be better. I see that these changes were done in commit > 46b91e37. Copying Bjorn Helgaas.
As the 46b91e37 changelog says, it was done to use "the normal %pR-like format". I think that's a valid goal. When we're printing the same sort of information, we should use the same sort of format. But I don't think the "Can not request iomem region <0x c7eff000-0x c7f00000> for ERST" output mentioned in the original post was affected by 46b91e37. I would suggest a change similar to 46b91e37 for ERST, and I would suggest using the leading zeros, with %#010llx for physical memory addresses and %#06llx for ioport addresses. That's what %pR uses, and it produces columnar alignment in many cases (though not this one). Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
