On Fri 2024-08-16 09:44:10, Ira Weiny wrote:
> The use of struct range in the CXL subsystem is growing. In particular,
> the addition of Dynamic Capacity devices uses struct range in a number
> of places which are reported in debug and error messages.
>
> To wit requiring the printing of the start/end fields in each print
> became cumbersome. Dan Williams mentions in [1] that it might be time
> to have a print specifier for struct range similar to struct resource
>
> A few alternatives were considered including '%pn' for 'print raNge' but
> %par follows that struct range is most often used to store a range of
> physical addresses. So use '%par' for 'print address range'.
>
> --- a/Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst
> @@ -231,6 +231,20 @@ width of the CPU data path.
>
> Passed by reference.
>
> +Struct Range
> +------------
> +
> +::
> +
> + %par [range 0x60000000-0x6fffffff] or
It seems that it is always 64-bit. It prints:
struct range {
u64 start;
u64 end;
};
> + [range 0x0000000060000000-0x000000006fffffff]
> +
> +For printing struct range. A variation of printing a physical address is to
> +print the value of struct range which are often used to hold a physical
> address
> +range.
> +
> +Passed by reference.
> +
> DMA address types dma_addr_t
> ----------------------------
>
> diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
> index 2d71b1115916..c132178fac07 100644
> --- a/lib/vsprintf.c
> +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c
> @@ -1140,6 +1140,39 @@ char *resource_string(char *buf, char *end, struct
> resource *res,
> return string_nocheck(buf, end, sym, spec);
> }
>
> +static noinline_for_stack
> +char *range_string(char *buf, char *end, const struct range *range,
> + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt)
> +{
> +#define RANGE_PRINTK_SIZE 16
> +#define RANGE_DECODED_BUF_SIZE ((2 * sizeof(struct range)) + 4)
> +#define RANGE_PRINT_BUF_SIZE sizeof("[range - ]")
I think that it should be "[range -]"
> + char sym[RANGE_DECODED_BUF_SIZE + RANGE_PRINT_BUF_SIZE];
> + char *p = sym, *pend = sym + sizeof(sym);
> +
> + static const struct printf_spec str_spec = {
> + .field_width = -1,
> + .precision = 10,
> + .flags = LEFT,
> + };
Is this really needed? What about using "default_str_spec" instead?
> + static const struct printf_spec range_spec = {
> + .base = 16,
> + .field_width = RANGE_PRINTK_SIZE,
> + .precision = -1,
> + .flags = SPECIAL | SMALL | ZEROPAD,
> + };
> +
> + *p++ = '[';
> + p = string_nocheck(p, pend, "range ", str_spec);
> + p = number(p, pend, range->start, range_spec);
> + *p++ = '-';
> + p = number(p, pend, range->end, range_spec);
> + *p++ = ']';
> + *p = '\0';
> +
> + return string_nocheck(buf, end, sym, spec);
> +}
> +
> static noinline_for_stack
> char *hex_string(char *buf, char *end, u8 *addr, struct printf_spec spec,
> const char *fmt)
Also add a selftest into lib/test_printf.c, please.
Best Regards,
Petr
