On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:46:54PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > I think there's value in following the conventions in a subsystem.
"conventions in a subsystem" my ass. That's brainless copy-pasting. It was added by f6edea77c8c8 ("ACPI, APEI, CPER: Cleanup CPER memory error output format") and then replicated everywhere. It is simply a dumb way of writing: snprintf(newpfx, sizeof(newpfx), "%s ", pfx); > I can change this if you give a reason besides "it's dumb". Two can play that game: you get to keep it if you give a good reason why. > We do map the spec-defined GUIDs in patch 4 of this set. I don't know if > there's > a central place where all vendor-defined GUIDs are listed. I can look into > this. Yes, at least for the most prominent ones. > And the raw value should still be printed because > 1) It may represent a type that we can't decode. Maybe a type that's not part > of > the spec. If we can't decode it, *then* you dump it: "Unrecognized type: 0x%llx ..." > 2) It's good to have the raw value for reference. We do this with MCA_STATUS > where we print the raw value followed by the decoding. 1. No one stares at the raw value if the bits are decoded 2. MCA_STATUS is one register - this error record is huge. > The structs are all different even though some fields may be the same. Fair enough. Only if it makes sense. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) --