On 15/05/2024 4:29 pm, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> Print the CPU affinity masks as numeric ranges instead of plain hexadecimal
> bitfields.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
> ---
> xen/arch/x86/irq.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> index 80ba8d9fe912..3b951d81bd6d 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> @@ -1934,10 +1934,10 @@ void do_IRQ(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
> if ( ~irq < nr_irqs && irq_desc_initialized(desc) )
> {
> spin_lock(&desc->lock);
> - printk("IRQ%d a=%04lx[%04lx,%04lx] v=%02x[%02x] t=%s
> s=%08x\n",
> - ~irq, *cpumask_bits(desc->affinity),
> - *cpumask_bits(desc->arch.cpu_mask),
> - *cpumask_bits(desc->arch.old_cpu_mask),
> + printk("IRQ%d a={%*pbl}[{%*pbl},{%*pbl}] v=%02x[%02x]
> t=%s s=%08x\n",
Looking at this more closely, there's still some information obfuscation
going on.
How about "... a={} o={} n={} v=..."
so affinity, old and new masks are all stated explicitly, instead of
having to remember what the square brackets mean, and in particular that
the masks are backwards?
Happy to adjust on commit.
~Andrew
