From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com (mail-ig0-f180.google.com [209.85.213.180]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 415ED6B0038 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:28:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by igbkq10 with SMTP id kq10so99334187igb.0 for ; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 06:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com (mail-io0-f180.google.com. [209.85.223.180]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a18si2226682igr.7.2015.09.09.06.28.58 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Sep 2015 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ioii196 with SMTP id i196so21685990ioi.3 for ; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150909132710.GG4973@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <1440609031-14695-1-git-send-email-izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com> <1440609089-14787-1-git-send-email-izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com> <20150909132710.GG4973@codeblueprint.co.uk> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:28:57 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] efi: Change abbreviation of EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME from "RUN" to "RT" From: Ard Biesheuvel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Matt Fleming Cc: Taku Izumi , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , Matt Fleming , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , Tony Luck , qiuxishi@huawei.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Peter Jones , Laszlo Ersek , Borislav Petkov On 9 September 2015 at 15:27, Matt Fleming 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 >> Signed-off-by: Taku Izumi >> --- >> 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org