On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 21:50 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Andy Shevchenko wrote: [] > > > + /* > > > + * Make sure our unicode screen translates into the same glyphs > > > + * as the actual screen. This is brutal indeed. > > > + */ > > > + p = (unsigned short *)vc->vc_origin; > > > + mask = vc->vc_hi_font_mask | 0xff; > > > + for (y = 0; y < vc->vc_rows; y++) { > > > + char32_t *line = uniscr->lines[y]; > > > + for (x = 0; x < vc->vc_cols; x++) { > > > + u16 glyph = scr_readw(p++) & mask; > > > + char32_t uc = line[x]; > > > + int tc = conv_uni_to_pc(vc, uc); > > > + if (tc == -4) > > > + tc = conv_uni_to_pc(vc, 0xfffd); > > > + if (tc == -4) > > > + tc = conv_uni_to_pc(vc, '?'); > > > + if (tc != glyph) > > > + pr_notice("%s: mismatch at %d,%d: " > > > + "glyph=%#x tc=%#x\n", __func__, > > > + x, y, glyph, tc); > > > > Don't split format string in printk(). checkpatch will not warn on longer > > lines. > > I didn't do it like that for checkpatch but to keep the code readable. > I don't particularly care either ways though.
If one glyph is off, then perhaps others are off too. Perhaps this message should be ratelimited.