Re: [PATCH 4/7] x86: Replace print_symbol() with new %ps/%pS format

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>]

On 05/11/13 10:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 04.11.13 at 22:30, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/time.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/time.c
>> @@ -1475,8 +1475,7 @@ static int 
>> _disable_pit_irq(void(*hpet_broadcast_setup)(void))
>>          {
>>              if ( xen_cpuidle > 0 )
>>              {
>> -                print_symbol("%s() failed, turning to PIT broadcast\n",
>> -                             (unsigned long)hpet_broadcast_setup);
>> +                printk("hpet_broadcast_setup() failed, turning to PIT broadcast\n");
> You're losing information here - hpet_broadcast_setup is a pointer
> to a function.

So I am.

>
>> --- a/xen/common/timer.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/timer.c
>> @@ -511,9 +511,9 @@ s_time_t align_timer(s_time_t firsttick, uint64_t period)
>>  
>>  static void dump_timer(struct timer *t, s_time_t now)
>>  {
>> -    printk("  ex=%8"PRId64"us timer=%p cb=%p(%p)",
>> -           (t->expires - now) / 1000, t, t->function, t->data);
>> -    print_symbol(" %s\n", (unsigned long)t->function);
>> +    printk("  ex=%8"PRId64"us timer=%p cb=%p(%p) %ps()\n",
>> +           (t->expires - now) / 1000, t, t->function, t->data,
>> +           _p(t->function));
> Do you really think printing t->function as raw _and_ as symbolic
> is worthwhile?

Probably not, especially given the new fallback behaviour upon failing
to find a symbol name

>
> Also, this isn't really x86 code...
>
> Jan
>

So it isn't.  I shall split it into a patch on its own.

~Andrew