Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:40:34 +0530 | From | "Naveen N. Rao" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] APEI/ERST: Fix error message formatting |
| |
On 07/31/2013 11:30 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Naveen N. Rao > <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> My key question was about why we are using a field width of 10 implying a >> 32-bit value, rather than a field width of 18 as suggested by the data type? >> This shouldn't truncate the value, but if we are specifying the field width >> for alignment, seems to me it is better to match the data type. > > %pR uses a field width of 10 (two for "0x", eight for the value) > simply because the majority of resource values fit in 32 bits. Larger > values extend the width, so it's not a question of truncating any > data. But it's no fun to read memory addresses when most of them have > eight extra leading zeros (the high 32-bits of a 64-bit value). I > think the same applies here; most ACPI table addresses still fit in 32 > bits. > > We *do* use a field width of 18 for the e820 table, even though many > of those regions fit in 32 bits. But that's sort of an exception > because it's a table where addresses above 4GB are pretty common.
Makes sense, thanks for the explanation.
> > But at the end of the day, I guess I'm just stating my personal > preferences and yours might be different.
Right - I'd probably prefer just %#llx. But yeah, the currently used field width of 10 looks fine too.
Thanks, Naveen
| |