Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1221434 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] efi: Change abbreviation of EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME from "RUN" to "RT"

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] efi: Change abbreviation of EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME  from "RUN" to "RT" Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2015-09-09 15:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] efi: Change abbreviation of EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME  from "RUN" to "RT" Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> - 2015-09-09 15:30 +0200

#1221434 — Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] efi: Change abbreviation of EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME from "RUN" to "RT"

On Thu, 27 Aug, at 02:11:29AM, Taku Izumi wrote:
> Now efi_md_typeattr_format() outputs "RUN" if passed EFI memory
> descriptor has EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME attribute. But "RT" is preferer
> because it is shorter and clearer.
> 
> This patch changes abbreviation of EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME from "RUN"
> to "RT".
> 
> Suggested-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> index 8124078..25b6477 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> @@ -594,8 +594,8 @@ char * __init efi_md_typeattr_format(char *buf, size_t size,
>  		snprintf(pos, size, "|attr=0x%016llx]",
>  			 (unsigned long long)attr);
>  	else
> -		snprintf(pos, size, "|%3s|%2s|%2s|%2s|%2s|%3s|%2s|%2s|%2s|%2s]",
> -			 attr & EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME ? "RUN" : "",
> +		snprintf(pos, size, "|%2s|%2s|%2s|%2s|%2s|%3s|%2s|%2s|%2s|%2s]",
> +			 attr & EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME ? "RT" : "",
>  			 attr & EFI_MEMORY_MORE_RELIABLE ? "MR" : "",
>  			 attr & EFI_MEMORY_XP      ? "XP"  : "",
>  			 attr & EFI_MEMORY_RP      ? "RP"  : "",

I know that Ard suggested this change but I don't think I should apply
this and the reason is that developers, particularly distro
developers, come to rely on the output we print for debugging
purposes.

They don't necessarily monitor all the patches getting merged upstream
closely enough to realise that it impacts their debugging strategy. So
when they notice that the output has gone from "RUN" to "RT" they're
naturally going to ask what the difference is... and the answer is "it
looks prettier". That's not a good enough reason.

Obviously if we're printing something that's completely incorrect, or
we can improve the message considerably, then yes, it makes sense to
change it - but that's not the case here.

Thanks for the patch, but sorry, I'm not going to apply this one.

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1221437

On 9 September 2015 at 15:27, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug, at 02:11:29AM, Taku Izumi wrote:
>> Now efi_md_typeattr_format() outputs "RUN" if passed EFI memory
>> descriptor has EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME attribute. But "RT" is preferer
>> because it is shorter and clearer.
>>
>> This patch changes abbreviation of EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME from "RUN"
>> to "RT".
>>
>> Suggested-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
>> index 8124078..25b6477 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
>> @@ -594,8 +594,8 @@ char * __init efi_md_typeattr_format(char *buf, size_t size,
>>               snprintf(pos, size, "|attr=0x%016llx]",
>>                        (unsigned long long)attr);
>>       else
>> -             snprintf(pos, size, "|%3s|%2s|%2s|%2s|%2s|%3s|%2s|%2s|%2s|%2s]",
>> -                      attr & EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME ? "RUN" : "",
>> +             snprintf(pos, size, "|%2s|%2s|%2s|%2s|%2s|%3s|%2s|%2s|%2s|%2s]",
>> +                      attr & EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME ? "RT" : "",
>>                        attr & EFI_MEMORY_MORE_RELIABLE ? "MR" : "",
>>                        attr & EFI_MEMORY_XP      ? "XP"  : "",
>>                        attr & EFI_MEMORY_RP      ? "RP"  : "",
>
> I know that Ard suggested this change but I don't think I should apply
> this and the reason is that developers, particularly distro
> developers, come to rely on the output we print for debugging
> purposes.
>
> They don't necessarily monitor all the patches getting merged upstream
> closely enough to realise that it impacts their debugging strategy. So
> when they notice that the output has gone from "RUN" to "RT" they're
> naturally going to ask what the difference is... and the answer is "it
> looks prettier". That's not a good enough reason.
>
> Obviously if we're printing something that's completely incorrect, or
> we can improve the message considerably, then yes, it makes sense to
> change it - but that's not the case here.
>
> Thanks for the patch, but sorry, I'm not going to apply this one.
>

Ack. It was more an illustration of my argument for preferring MR over
REL[IY] than anything else,.

-- 
ard.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web