[PATCH] cxl: Remove useless precision specifiers

[PATCH] cxl: Remove useless precision specifiers

[Rasmus Villemoes]

C99 says that a precision given as simply '.' with no following digits
or * should be interpreted as 0. The kernel's printf implementation,
however, treats this case as if the precision was omitted. C99 also
says that if both the precision and value are 0, no digits should be
printed. Even if the kernel followed C99 to the letter, I don't think
that would be particularly useful in these cases, so just remove the
precision specifiers.

Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
---
 drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
index c8929c526691..46635a8dbeae 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info)
 	if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_An_PE)
 		return handle_psl_slice_error(ctx, dsisr, irq_info->errstat);
 	if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_An_AE) {
-		pr_devel("CXL interrupt: AFU Error %.llx\n", irq_info->afu_err);
+		pr_devel("CXL interrupt: AFU Error %llx\n", irq_info->afu_err);
 
 		if (ctx->pending_afu_err) {
 			/*
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info)
 			 * probably best that we log them somewhere:
 			 */
 			dev_err_ratelimited(&ctx->afu->dev, "CXL AFU Error "
-					    "undelivered to pe %i: %.llx\n",
+					    "undelivered to pe %i: %llx\n",
 					    ctx->pe, irq_info->afu_err);
 		} else {
 			spin_lock(&ctx->lock);
-- 
2.1.3

[PATCH] cxl: Remove useless precision specifiers

[Rasmus Villemoes]

C99 says that a precision given as simply '.' with no following digits
or * should be interpreted as 0. The kernel's printf implementation,
however, treats this case as if the precision was omitted. C99 also
says that if both the precision and value are 0, no digits should be
printed. Even if the kernel followed C99 to the letter, I don't think
that would be particularly useful in these cases, so just remove the
precision specifiers.

Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
---
 drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
index c8929c526691..46635a8dbeae 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info)
 	if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_An_PE)
 		return handle_psl_slice_error(ctx, dsisr, irq_info->errstat);
 	if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_An_AE) {
-		pr_devel("CXL interrupt: AFU Error %.llx\n", irq_info->afu_err);
+		pr_devel("CXL interrupt: AFU Error %llx\n", irq_info->afu_err);
 
 		if (ctx->pending_afu_err) {
 			/*
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info)
 			 * probably best that we log them somewhere:
 			 */
 			dev_err_ratelimited(&ctx->afu->dev, "CXL AFU Error "
-					    "undelivered to pe %i: %.llx\n",
+					    "undelivered to pe %i: %llx\n",
 					    ctx->pe, irq_info->afu_err);
 		} else {
 			spin_lock(&ctx->lock);
-- 
2.1.3

Re: [PATCH] cxl: Remove useless precision specifiers

[Ian Munsie]

Excerpts from Rasmus Villemoes's message of 2015-02-21 00:26:22 +1100:
> C99 says that a precision given as simply '.' with no following digits
> or * should be interpreted as 0. The kernel's printf implementation,
> however, treats this case as if the precision was omitted. C99 also
> says that if both the precision and value are 0, no digits should be
> printed. Even if the kernel followed C99 to the letter, I don't think
> that would be particularly useful in these cases, so just remove the
> precision specifiers.

Nice catch Rasmus, but I think a better patch would be one that adds the
missing precision (%.16llx).

Cheers,
-Ian

Re: [PATCH] cxl: Remove useless precision specifiers

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 14:40 +1100, Ian Munsie wrote:
> Excerpts from Rasmus Villemoes's message of 2015-02-21 00:26:22 +1100:
> > C99 says that a precision given as simply '.' with no following digits
> > or * should be interpreted as 0. The kernel's printf implementation,
> > however, treats this case as if the precision was omitted. C99 also
> > says that if both the precision and value are 0, no digits should be
> > printed. Even if the kernel followed C99 to the letter, I don't think
> > that would be particularly useful in these cases, so just remove the
> > precision specifiers.
> 
> Nice catch Rasmus, but I think a better patch would be one that adds the
> missing precision (%.16llx).

The kernel much more commonly uses %016llx

$ git grep "%016llx" | grep -v staging | wc -l
792
$ git grep "%\.16llx" | grep -v staging | wc -l
36

Re: [PATCH] cxl: Remove useless precision specifiers

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 14:40 +1100, Ian Munsie wrote:
> Excerpts from Rasmus Villemoes's message of 2015-02-21 00:26:22 +1100:
> > C99 says that a precision given as simply '.' with no following digits
> > or * should be interpreted as 0. The kernel's printf implementation,
> > however, treats this case as if the precision was omitted. C99 also
> > says that if both the precision and value are 0, no digits should be
> > printed. Even if the kernel followed C99 to the letter, I don't think
> > that would be particularly useful in these cases, so just remove the
> > precision specifiers.
> 
> Nice catch Rasmus, but I think a better patch would be one that adds the
> missing precision (%.16llx).

The kernel much more commonly uses %016llx

$ git grep "%016llx" | grep -v staging | wc -l
792
$ git grep "%\.16llx" | grep -v staging | wc -l
36

[PATCH v2] cxl: Add explicit precision specifiers

[Rasmus Villemoes]

C99 says that a precision given as simply '.' with no following digits
or * should be interpreted as 0. The kernel's printf implementation,
however, treats this case as if the precision was omitted. C99 also
says that if both the precision and value are 0, no digits should be
printed. Even if the kernel followed C99 to the letter, I don't think
that would be particularly useful in these cases. For consistency with
most other format strings in the file, use an explicit precision of 16
and add a 0x prefix.

Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
---
What Joe said is of course technically true, but 24 of the %.16llx
matches are in drivers/misc/cxl/, so internal consistency wins.

 drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
index c8929c526691..4b73f4b9e7f1 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info)
 	if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_An_PE)
 		return handle_psl_slice_error(ctx, dsisr, irq_info->errstat);
 	if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_An_AE) {
-		pr_devel("CXL interrupt: AFU Error %.llx\n", irq_info->afu_err);
+		pr_devel("CXL interrupt: AFU Error 0x%.16llx\n", irq_info->afu_err);
 
 		if (ctx->pending_afu_err) {
 			/*
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info)
 			 * probably best that we log them somewhere:
 			 */
 			dev_err_ratelimited(&ctx->afu->dev, "CXL AFU Error "
-					    "undelivered to pe %i: %.llx\n",
+					    "undelivered to pe %i: 0x%.16llx\n",
 					    ctx->pe, irq_info->afu_err);
 		} else {
 			spin_lock(&ctx->lock);
-- 
2.1.3

[PATCH v2] cxl: Add explicit precision specifiers

[Rasmus Villemoes]

C99 says that a precision given as simply '.' with no following digits
or * should be interpreted as 0. The kernel's printf implementation,
however, treats this case as if the precision was omitted. C99 also
says that if both the precision and value are 0, no digits should be
printed. Even if the kernel followed C99 to the letter, I don't think
that would be particularly useful in these cases. For consistency with
most other format strings in the file, use an explicit precision of 16
and add a 0x prefix.

Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
---
What Joe said is of course technically true, but 24 of the %.16llx
matches are in drivers/misc/cxl/, so internal consistency wins.

 drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
index c8929c526691..4b73f4b9e7f1 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info)
 	if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_An_PE)
 		return handle_psl_slice_error(ctx, dsisr, irq_info->errstat);
 	if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_An_AE) {
-		pr_devel("CXL interrupt: AFU Error %.llx\n", irq_info->afu_err);
+		pr_devel("CXL interrupt: AFU Error 0x%.16llx\n", irq_info->afu_err);
 
 		if (ctx->pending_afu_err) {
 			/*
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info)
 			 * probably best that we log them somewhere:
 			 */
 			dev_err_ratelimited(&ctx->afu->dev, "CXL AFU Error "
-					    "undelivered to pe %i: %.llx\n",
+					    "undelivered to pe %i: 0x%.16llx\n",
 					    ctx->pe, irq_info->afu_err);
 		} else {
 			spin_lock(&ctx->lock);
-- 
2.1.3

Re: [PATCH v2] cxl: Add explicit precision specifiers

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 11:55 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> 24 of the %.16llx
> matches are in drivers/misc/cxl/, so internal consistency wins.

I think that's more an argument for changing all of the
cx1 uses to "%016llx".

Re: [PATCH v2] cxl: Add explicit precision specifiers

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 11:55 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> 24 of the %.16llx
> matches are in drivers/misc/cxl/, so internal consistency wins.

I think that's more an argument for changing all of the
cx1 uses to "%016llx".

Re: [PATCH v2] cxl: Add explicit precision specifiers

[Michael Ellerman]

On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 06:59 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 11:55 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > 24 of the %.16llx
> > matches are in drivers/misc/cxl/, so internal consistency wins.
> 
> I think that's more an argument for changing all of the
> cx1 uses to "%016llx".

+1

cheers

Re: [PATCH v2] cxl: Add explicit precision specifiers

[Michael Ellerman]

On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 06:59 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 11:55 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > 24 of the %.16llx
> > matches are in drivers/misc/cxl/, so internal consistency wins.
> 
> I think that's more an argument for changing all of the
> cx1 uses to "%016llx".

+1

cheers

Re: [PATCH v2] cxl: Add explicit precision specifiers

[Ian Munsie]

Excerpts from Joe Perches's message of 2015-02-24 01:59:45 +1100:
> On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 11:55 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > 24 of the %.16llx
> > matches are in drivers/misc/cxl/, so internal consistency wins.
> 
> I think that's more an argument for changing all of the
> cx1 uses to "%016llx".

I would not object if someone submitted a patch that makes this change
across the whole driver.

Cheers,
-Ian

Re: [PATCH v2] cxl: Add explicit precision specifiers

[Ian Munsie]

Excerpts from Joe Perches's message of 2015-02-24 01:59:45 +1100:
> On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 11:55 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > 24 of the %.16llx
> > matches are in drivers/misc/cxl/, so internal consistency wins.
> 
> I think that's more an argument for changing all of the
> cx1 uses to "%016llx".

I would not object if someone submitted a patch that makes this change
across the whole driver.

Cheers,
-Ian

[PATCH v3 1/2] cxl: Add explicit precision specifiers

[Rasmus Villemoes]

C99 says that a precision given as simply '.' with no following digits
or * should be interpreted as 0. The kernel's printf implementation,
however, treats this case as if the precision was omitted. C99 also
says that if both the precision and value are 0, no digits should be
printed. Even if the kernel followed C99 to the letter, I don't think
that would be particularly useful in these cases. For consistency with
most other format strings in the file, use an explicit precision of 16
and add a 0x prefix.

Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
---
v3: same as v2, just resending along with a followup patch doing what
Joe suggested.

 drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
index c8929c526691..4b73f4b9e7f1 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info)
 	if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_An_PE)
 		return handle_psl_slice_error(ctx, dsisr, irq_info->errstat);
 	if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_An_AE) {
-		pr_devel("CXL interrupt: AFU Error %.llx\n", irq_info->afu_err);
+		pr_devel("CXL interrupt: AFU Error 0x%.16llx\n", irq_info->afu_err);
 
 		if (ctx->pending_afu_err) {
 			/*
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info)
 			 * probably best that we log them somewhere:
 			 */
 			dev_err_ratelimited(&ctx->afu->dev, "CXL AFU Error "
-					    "undelivered to pe %i: %.llx\n",
+					    "undelivered to pe %i: 0x%.16llx\n",
 					    ctx->pe, irq_info->afu_err);
 		} else {
 			spin_lock(&ctx->lock);
-- 
2.1.3

[PATCH v3 2/2] cxl: use more common format specifier

[Rasmus Villemoes]

A precision of 16 (%.16llx) has the same effect as a field width of 16
along with passing the 0 flag (%016llx), but the latter is much more
common in the kernel tree. Update cxl to use that.

Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
---
So, maybe this on top?

 drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c    | 32 ++++++++++++++++----------------
 drivers/misc/cxl/native.c | 10 +++++-----
 drivers/misc/cxl/pci.c    | 10 +++++-----
 drivers/misc/cxl/trace.h  | 10 +++++-----
 4 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
index 4b73f4b9e7f1..f1bd3e6e6109 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c
@@ -30,12 +30,12 @@ static irqreturn_t handle_psl_slice_error(struct cxl_context *ctx, u64 dsisr, u6
 	serr = cxl_p1n_read(ctx->afu, CXL_PSL_SERR_An);
 	afu_debug = cxl_p1n_read(ctx->afu, CXL_AFU_DEBUG_An);
 
-	dev_crit(&ctx->afu->dev, "PSL ERROR STATUS: 0x%.16llx\n", errstat);
-	dev_crit(&ctx->afu->dev, "PSL_FIR1: 0x%.16llx\n", fir1);
-	dev_crit(&ctx->afu->dev, "PSL_FIR2: 0x%.16llx\n", fir2);
-	dev_crit(&ctx->afu->dev, "PSL_SERR_An: 0x%.16llx\n", serr);
-	dev_crit(&ctx->afu->dev, "PSL_FIR_SLICE_An: 0x%.16llx\n", fir_slice);
-	dev_crit(&ctx->afu->dev, "CXL_PSL_AFU_DEBUG_An: 0x%.16llx\n", afu_debug);
+	dev_crit(&ctx->afu->dev, "PSL ERROR STATUS: 0x%016llx\n", errstat);
+	dev_crit(&ctx->afu->dev, "PSL_FIR1: 0x%016llx\n", fir1);
+	dev_crit(&ctx->afu->dev, "PSL_FIR2: 0x%016llx\n", fir2);
+	dev_crit(&ctx->afu->dev, "PSL_SERR_An: 0x%016llx\n", serr);
+	dev_crit(&ctx->afu->dev, "PSL_FIR_SLICE_An: 0x%016llx\n", fir_slice);
+	dev_crit(&ctx->afu->dev, "CXL_PSL_AFU_DEBUG_An: 0x%016llx\n", afu_debug);
 
 	dev_crit(&ctx->afu->dev, "STOPPING CXL TRACE\n");
 	cxl_stop_trace(ctx->afu->adapter);
@@ -54,10 +54,10 @@ irqreturn_t cxl_slice_irq_err(int irq, void *data)
 	fir_slice = cxl_p1n_read(afu, CXL_PSL_FIR_SLICE_An);
 	errstat = cxl_p2n_read(afu, CXL_PSL_ErrStat_An);
 	afu_debug = cxl_p1n_read(afu, CXL_AFU_DEBUG_An);
-	dev_crit(&afu->dev, "PSL_SERR_An: 0x%.16llx\n", serr);
-	dev_crit(&afu->dev, "PSL_FIR_SLICE_An: 0x%.16llx\n", fir_slice);
-	dev_crit(&afu->dev, "CXL_PSL_ErrStat_An: 0x%.16llx\n", errstat);
-	dev_crit(&afu->dev, "CXL_PSL_AFU_DEBUG_An: 0x%.16llx\n", afu_debug);
+	dev_crit(&afu->dev, "PSL_SERR_An: 0x%016llx\n", serr);
+	dev_crit(&afu->dev, "PSL_FIR_SLICE_An: 0x%016llx\n", fir_slice);
+	dev_crit(&afu->dev, "CXL_PSL_ErrStat_An: 0x%016llx\n", errstat);
+	dev_crit(&afu->dev, "CXL_PSL_AFU_DEBUG_An: 0x%016llx\n", afu_debug);
 
 	cxl_p1n_write(afu, CXL_PSL_SERR_An, serr);
 
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq_err(int irq, void *data)
 	WARN(1, "CXL ERROR interrupt %i\n", irq);
 
 	err_ivte = cxl_p1_read(adapter, CXL_PSL_ErrIVTE);
-	dev_crit(&adapter->dev, "PSL_ErrIVTE: 0x%.16llx\n", err_ivte);
+	dev_crit(&adapter->dev, "PSL_ErrIVTE: 0x%016llx\n", err_ivte);
 
 	dev_crit(&adapter->dev, "STOPPING CXL TRACE\n");
 	cxl_stop_trace(adapter);
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq_err(int irq, void *data)
 	fir1 = cxl_p1_read(adapter, CXL_PSL_FIR1);
 	fir2 = cxl_p1_read(adapter, CXL_PSL_FIR2);
 
-	dev_crit(&adapter->dev, "PSL_FIR1: 0x%.16llx\nPSL_FIR2: 0x%.16llx\n", fir1, fir2);
+	dev_crit(&adapter->dev, "PSL_FIR1: 0x%016llx\nPSL_FIR2: 0x%016llx\n", fir1, fir2);
 
 	return IRQ_HANDLED;
 }
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info)
 	if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_An_PE)
 		return handle_psl_slice_error(ctx, dsisr, irq_info->errstat);
 	if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_An_AE) {
-		pr_devel("CXL interrupt: AFU Error 0x%.16llx\n", irq_info->afu_err);
+		pr_devel("CXL interrupt: AFU Error 0x%016llx\n", irq_info->afu_err);
 
 		if (ctx->pending_afu_err) {
 			/*
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info)
 			 * probably best that we log them somewhere:
 			 */
 			dev_err_ratelimited(&ctx->afu->dev, "CXL AFU Error "
-					    "undelivered to pe %i: 0x%.16llx\n",
+					    "undelivered to pe %i: 0x%016llx\n",
 					    ctx->pe, irq_info->afu_err);
 		} else {
 			spin_lock(&ctx->lock);
@@ -211,8 +211,8 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq_multiplexed(int irq, void *data)
 	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 
-	WARN(1, "Unable to demultiplex CXL PSL IRQ for PE %i DSISR %.16llx DAR"
-		" %.16llx\n(Possible AFU HW issue - was a term/remove acked"
+	WARN(1, "Unable to demultiplex CXL PSL IRQ for PE %i DSISR %016llx DAR"
+		" %016llx\n(Possible AFU HW issue - was a term/remove acked"
 		" with outstanding transactions?)\n", ph, irq_info.dsisr,
 		irq_info.dar);
 	return fail_psl_irq(afu, &irq_info);
diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/native.c b/drivers/misc/cxl/native.c
index 29185fc61276..d1d678f0d3dd 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/cxl/native.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/cxl/native.c
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static int afu_control(struct cxl_afu *afu, u64 command,
 			rc = -EBUSY;
 			goto out;
 		}
-		pr_devel_ratelimited("AFU control... (0x%.16llx)\n",
+		pr_devel_ratelimited("AFU control... (0x%016llx)\n",
 				     AFU_Cntl | command);
 		cpu_relax();
 		AFU_Cntl = cxl_p2n_read(afu, CXL_AFU_Cntl_An);
@@ -120,13 +120,13 @@ int cxl_psl_purge(struct cxl_afu *afu)
 			goto out;
 		}
 		dsisr = cxl_p2n_read(afu, CXL_PSL_DSISR_An);
-		pr_devel_ratelimited("PSL purging... PSL_CNTL: 0x%.16llx  PSL_DSISR: 0x%.16llx\n", PSL_CNTL, dsisr);
+		pr_devel_ratelimited("PSL purging... PSL_CNTL: 0x%016llx  PSL_DSISR: 0x%016llx\n", PSL_CNTL, dsisr);
 		if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_TRANS) {
 			dar = cxl_p2n_read(afu, CXL_PSL_DAR_An);
-			dev_notice(&afu->dev, "PSL purge terminating pending translation, DSISR: 0x%.16llx, DAR: 0x%.16llx\n", dsisr, dar);
+			dev_notice(&afu->dev, "PSL purge terminating pending translation, DSISR: 0x%016llx, DAR: 0x%016llx\n", dsisr, dar);
 			cxl_p2n_write(afu, CXL_PSL_TFC_An, CXL_PSL_TFC_An_AE);
 		} else if (dsisr) {
-			dev_notice(&afu->dev, "PSL purge acknowledging pending non-translation fault, DSISR: 0x%.16llx\n", dsisr);
+			dev_notice(&afu->dev, "PSL purge acknowledging pending non-translation fault, DSISR: 0x%016llx\n", dsisr);
 			cxl_p2n_write(afu, CXL_PSL_TFC_An, CXL_PSL_TFC_An_A);
 		} else {
 			cpu_relax();
@@ -677,7 +677,7 @@ static void recover_psl_err(struct cxl_afu *afu, u64 errstat)
 {
 	u64 dsisr;
 
-	pr_devel("RECOVERING FROM PSL ERROR... (0x%.16llx)\n", errstat);
+	pr_devel("RECOVERING FROM PSL ERROR... (0x%016llx)\n", errstat);
 
 	/* Clear PSL_DSISR[PE] */
 	dsisr = cxl_p2n_read(afu, CXL_PSL_DSISR_An);
diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/pci.c b/drivers/misc/cxl/pci.c
index 1ef01647265f..97ec0c7e1285 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/cxl/pci.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/cxl/pci.c
@@ -630,7 +630,7 @@ static int sanitise_afu_regs(struct cxl_afu *afu)
 	 */
 	reg = cxl_p2n_read(afu, CXL_AFU_Cntl_An);
 	if ((reg & CXL_AFU_Cntl_An_ES_MASK) != CXL_AFU_Cntl_An_ES_Disabled) {
-		dev_warn(&afu->dev, "WARNING: AFU was not disabled: %#.16llx\n", reg);
+		dev_warn(&afu->dev, "WARNING: AFU was not disabled: %#016llx\n", reg);
 		if (cxl_afu_reset(afu))
 			return -EIO;
 		if (cxl_afu_disable(afu))
@@ -651,7 +651,7 @@ static int sanitise_afu_regs(struct cxl_afu *afu)
 	cxl_p2n_write(afu, CXL_SSTP0_An, 0x0000000000000000);
 	reg = cxl_p2n_read(afu, CXL_PSL_DSISR_An);
 	if (reg) {
-		dev_warn(&afu->dev, "AFU had pending DSISR: %#.16llx\n", reg);
+		dev_warn(&afu->dev, "AFU had pending DSISR: %#016llx\n", reg);
 		if (reg & CXL_PSL_DSISR_TRANS)
 			cxl_p2n_write(afu, CXL_PSL_TFC_An, CXL_PSL_TFC_An_AE);
 		else
@@ -660,12 +660,12 @@ static int sanitise_afu_regs(struct cxl_afu *afu)
 	reg = cxl_p1n_read(afu, CXL_PSL_SERR_An);
 	if (reg) {
 		if (reg & ~0xffff)
-			dev_warn(&afu->dev, "AFU had pending SERR: %#.16llx\n", reg);
+			dev_warn(&afu->dev, "AFU had pending SERR: %#016llx\n", reg);
 		cxl_p1n_write(afu, CXL_PSL_SERR_An, reg & ~0xffff);
 	}
 	reg = cxl_p2n_read(afu, CXL_PSL_ErrStat_An);
 	if (reg) {
-		dev_warn(&afu->dev, "AFU had pending error status: %#.16llx\n", reg);
+		dev_warn(&afu->dev, "AFU had pending error status: %#016llx\n", reg);
 		cxl_p2n_write(afu, CXL_PSL_ErrStat_An, reg);
 	}
 
@@ -818,7 +818,7 @@ static int cxl_map_adapter_regs(struct cxl *adapter, struct pci_dev *dev)
 	if (pci_request_region(dev, 0, "priv 1 regs"))
 		goto err2;
 
-	pr_devel("cxl_map_adapter_regs: p1: %#.16llx %#llx, p2: %#.16llx %#llx",
+	pr_devel("cxl_map_adapter_regs: p1: %#016llx %#llx, p2: %#016llx %#llx",
 			p1_base(dev), p1_size(dev), p2_base(dev), p2_size(dev));
 
 	if (!(adapter->p1_mmio = ioremap(p1_base(dev), p1_size(dev))))
diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/trace.h b/drivers/misc/cxl/trace.h
index ae434d87887e..6e1e2adfba8e 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/cxl/trace.h
+++ b/drivers/misc/cxl/trace.h
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ TRACE_EVENT(cxl_attach,
 		__entry->num_interrupts = num_interrupts;
 	),
 
-	TP_printk("afu%i.%i pid=%i pe=%i wed=0x%.16llx irqs=%i amr=0x%llx",
+	TP_printk("afu%i.%i pid=%i pe=%i wed=0x%016llx irqs=%i amr=0x%llx",
 		__entry->card,
 		__entry->afu,
 		__entry->pid,
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ TRACE_EVENT(cxl_psl_irq,
 		__entry->dar = dar;
 	),
 
-	TP_printk("afu%i.%i pe=%i irq=%i dsisr=%s dar=0x%.16llx",
+	TP_printk("afu%i.%i pe=%i irq=%i dsisr=%s dar=0x%016llx",
 		__entry->card,
 		__entry->afu,
 		__entry->pe,
@@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ TRACE_EVENT(cxl_ste_miss,
 		__entry->dar = dar;
 	),
 
-	TP_printk("afu%i.%i pe=%i dar=0x%.16llx",
+	TP_printk("afu%i.%i pe=%i dar=0x%016llx",
 		__entry->card,
 		__entry->afu,
 		__entry->pe,
@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ TRACE_EVENT(cxl_ste_write,
 		__entry->v = v;
 	),
 
-	TP_printk("afu%i.%i pe=%i SSTE[%i] E=0x%.16llx V=0x%.16llx",
+	TP_printk("afu%i.%i pe=%i SSTE[%i] E=0x%016llx V=0x%016llx",
 		__entry->card,
 		__entry->afu,
 		__entry->pe,
@@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ TRACE_EVENT(cxl_pte_miss,
 		__entry->dar = dar;
 	),
 
-	TP_printk("afu%i.%i pe=%i dsisr=%s dar=0x%.16llx",
+	TP_printk("afu%i.%i pe=%i dsisr=%s dar=0x%016llx",
 		__entry->card,
 		__entry->afu,
 		__entry->pe,
-- 
2.1.3

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] cxl: use more common format specifier

[Ian Munsie]

Acked-by: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>

Re: [v3,1/2] cxl: Add explicit precision specifiers

[Michael Ellerman]

On Thu, 2015-11-06 at 11:27:51 UTC, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> C99 says that a precision given as simply '.' with no following digits
> or * should be interpreted as 0. The kernel's printf implementation,
> however, treats this case as if the precision was omitted. C99 also
> says that if both the precision and value are 0, no digits should be
> printed. Even if the kernel followed C99 to the letter, I don't think
> that would be particularly useful in these cases. For consistency with
> most other format strings in the file, use an explicit precision of 16
> and add a 0x prefix.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>

Applied to powerpc next, thanks.

https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/80c394fab89649585089

cheers

Re: [PATCH v2] cxl: Add explicit precision specifiers

[Ian Munsie]

Acked-by: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>

Re: [PATCH v2] cxl: Add explicit precision specifiers

[Ian Munsie]

Acked-by: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>