From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: [RFC 3/8] x86/hpet: Fix ambiguity in broadcast info message. Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:28:44 +0000 Message-ID: <5278F28C.8070308@citrix.com> References: <1383591286-19976-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <1383591286-19976-4-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <5278DE4902000078000FF791@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Vdggc-0007jF-Gp for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:28:50 +0000 In-Reply-To: <5278DE4902000078000FF791@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Andrew Cooper , Keir Fraser , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 05/11/13 11:02, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 04.11.13 at 19:54, Andrew Cooper 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 >> CC: Keir Fraser >> CC: Jan Beulich >> --- >> 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