Re: [RFC 3/8] x86/hpet: Fix ambiguity in broadcast info message.

[David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>]

On 05/11/13 11:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 04.11.13 at 19:54, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> "$N will be used for broadcast" is ambiguous between "$N timers" or "timer
>> $N", particuarly when N is 0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
>> CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
>> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
>> ---
>>  xen/arch/x86/hpet.c |    2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hpet.c b/xen/arch/x86/hpet.c
>> index 99882b1..091e624 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hpet.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hpet.c
>> @@ -430,7 +430,7 @@ static void __init hpet_fsb_cap_lookup(void)
>>              num_hpets_used++;
>>      }
>>  
>> -    printk(XENLOG_INFO "HPET: %u timers (%u will be used for broadcast)\n",
>> +    printk(XENLOG_INFO "HPET: %u timers (%u timers used for broadcast)\n",
> 
> If you already alter this (which I'm not convinced is necessary - I
> personally never considered the message ambiguous), please also
> change "used" to "usable". And then maybe you agree adding the
> 2nd "timers" becomes unnecessary.

I agree with Andrew that the original wording is ambiguous.  It needs to
be clear that the second %u is a count, and not the subject of the
sub-clause.

My suggested wording would be:

"HPET: %u timers, %u are broadcast capable"

Or

"HPET: %u timers (%u are broadcast capable)"

If the broadcast capability is much less interesting that the overall
number of timers.

David