Re: [PATCH v3 19/21] scsi: fnic: Switch to use %ptSp

Petr Mladek
2025-11-19T10:09:25Z

On Thu 2025-11-13 15:32:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Use %ptSp instead of open coded variants to print content of
> struct timespec64 in human readable format.

I was about to commit the changes into printk/linux.git and
found a mistake during the final double check, see below.

> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_trace.c b/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_trace.c
> index cdc6b12b1ec2..0a849a195a8e 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_trace.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_trace.c
> @@ -215,30 +213,26 @@ int fnic_get_stats_data(struct stats_debug_info *debug,
> {
> int len = 0;
> int buf_size = debug->buf_size;
> - struct timespec64 val1, val2;
> + struct timespec64 val, val1, val2;
> int i = 0;
>
> - ktime_get_real_ts64(&val1);
> + ktime_get_real_ts64(&val);
> len = scnprintf(debug->debug_buffer + len, buf_size - len,
> "------------------------------------------\n"
> "\t\tTime\n"
> "------------------------------------------\n");
>
> + val1 = timespec64_sub(val, stats->stats_timestamps.last_reset_time);
> + val2 = timespec64_sub(val, stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time);
> len += scnprintf(debug->debug_buffer + len, buf_size - len,
> - "Current time : [%lld:%ld]\n"
> - "Last stats reset time: [%lld:%09ld]\n"
> - "Last stats read time: [%lld:%ld]\n"
> - "delta since last reset: [%lld:%ld]\n"
> - "delta since last read: [%lld:%ld]\n",
> - (s64)val1.tv_sec, val1.tv_nsec,
> - (s64)stats->stats_timestamps.last_reset_time.tv_sec,
> - stats->stats_timestamps.last_reset_time.tv_nsec,
> - (s64)stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time.tv_sec,
> - stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time.tv_nsec,
> - (s64)timespec64_sub(val1, stats->stats_timestamps.last_reset_time).tv_sec,
> - timespec64_sub(val1, stats->stats_timestamps.last_reset_time).tv_nsec,
> - (s64)timespec64_sub(val1, stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time).tv_sec,
> - timespec64_sub(val1, stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time).tv_nsec);
> + "Current time : [%ptSp]\n"
> + "Last stats reset time: [%ptSp]\n"
> + "Last stats read time: [%ptSp]\n"
> + "delta since last reset: [%ptSp]\n"
> + "delta since last read: [%ptSp]\n",

Both delta times are printed at the end.

> + &val,
> + &stats->stats_timestamps.last_reset_time, &val1,
> + &stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time, &val2);

I think that this should be:

&stats->stats_timestamps.last_reset_time,
&stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time,
&val1, &val2);

> stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time = val1;

The original code stored the current time in "val1". This should be:

stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time = val;

> @@ -416,8 +410,8 @@ int fnic_get_stats_data(struct stats_debug_info *debug,
> jiffies_to_timespec64(stats->misc_stats.last_ack_time, &val2);

Just for record. Another values are stored into @val1 and @val2 at
this point.

> len += scnprintf(debug->debug_buffer + len, buf_size - len,
> - "Last ISR time: %llu (%8llu.%09lu)\n"
> - "Last ACK time: %llu (%8llu.%09lu)\n"
> + "Last ISR time: %llu (%ptSp)\n"
> + "Last ACK time: %llu (%ptSp)\n"
> "Max ISR jiffies: %llu\n"
> "Max ISR time (ms) (0 denotes < 1 ms): %llu\n"
> "Corr. work done: %llu\n"
> @@ -437,10 +431,8 @@ int fnic_get_stats_data(struct stats_debug_info *debug,
> "Number of rport not ready: %lld\n"
> "Number of receive frame errors: %lld\n"
> "Port speed (in Mbps): %lld\n",
> - (u64)stats->misc_stats.last_isr_time,
> - (s64)val1.tv_sec, val1.tv_nsec,
> - (u64)stats->misc_stats.last_ack_time,
> - (s64)val2.tv_sec, val2.tv_nsec,
> + (u64)stats->misc_stats.last_isr_time, &val1,
> + (u64)stats->misc_stats.last_ack_time, &val2,

So, this is correct!

> (u64)atomic64_read(&stats->misc_stats.max_isr_jiffies),
> (u64)atomic64_read(&stats->misc_stats.max_isr_time_ms),
> (u64)atomic64_read(&stats->misc_stats.corr_work_done),

Now, I think that there is no need to resend the entire huge patchset.

I could either fix this when comitting or commit the rest and
you could send only this patch for review.

Best Regards,
Petr

PS: All other patches look good. Well, nobody acked 7th patch yet.
But I think that the change is pretty straightforward and
we could do it even without an ack.