>>> On 27.05.19 at 17:48, wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 04:36:42AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Since we can't
>> use entirely new format specifiers, did you consider (ab)using one
>> we rarely use, like %o, suffixed similarly like we do for %p? The
>> extension could be restricted to apply onl
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 04:36:42AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 10.05.19 at 18:10, wrote:
> > The new format specifier is '%pp', and prints a pci_sbdf_t using the
> > seg:bus:dev.func format. Replace all SBDFs printed using
> > '%04x:%02x:%02x.%u' to use the new format specifier.
>
> So on
>>> On 24.05.19 at 12:59, wrote:
> On 24/05/2019 11:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.05.19 at 18:10, wrote:
>>> The new format specifier is '%pp', and prints a pci_sbdf_t using the
>>> seg:bus:dev.func format. Replace all SBDFs printed using
>>> '%04x:%02x:%02x.%u' to use the new format specifi
On 24/05/2019 11:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.05.19 at 18:10, wrote:
>> The new format specifier is '%pp', and prints a pci_sbdf_t using the
>> seg:bus:dev.func format. Replace all SBDFs printed using
>> '%04x:%02x:%02x.%u' to use the new format specifier.
> So on the positive side Linux does
>>> On 10.05.19 at 18:10, wrote:
> The new format specifier is '%pp', and prints a pci_sbdf_t using the
> seg:bus:dev.func format. Replace all SBDFs printed using
> '%04x:%02x:%02x.%u' to use the new format specifier.
So on the positive side Linux doesn't use 'p' yet, so we're only at risk
of a f
The new format specifier is '%pp', and prints a pci_sbdf_t using the
seg:bus:dev.func format. Replace all SBDFs printed using
'%04x:%02x:%02x.%u' to use the new format specifier.
No functional change expected.
Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné
---
Cc: Andrew Cooper
Cc: George Dunlap
Cc: Ian Jacks
