Re: [PATCH] APEI/ERST: Fix error message formatting

["Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

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