On 16.05.2024 19:13, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 15/05/2024 4:29 pm, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>> Print the CPU affinity masks as numeric ranges instead of plain hexadecimal
>> bitfields.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
>> ---
>> xen/arch/x86/irq.c | 10 +++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
>> index 80ba8d9fe912..3b951d81bd6d 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
>> @@ -1934,10 +1934,10 @@ void do_IRQ(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>> if ( ~irq < nr_irqs && irq_desc_initialized(desc) )
>> {
>> spin_lock(&desc->lock);
>> - printk("IRQ%d a=%04lx[%04lx,%04lx] v=%02x[%02x] t=%s
>> s=%08x\n",
>> - ~irq, *cpumask_bits(desc->affinity),
>> - *cpumask_bits(desc->arch.cpu_mask),
>> - *cpumask_bits(desc->arch.old_cpu_mask),
>> + printk("IRQ%d a={%*pbl}[{%*pbl},{%*pbl}] v=%02x[%02x]
>> t=%s s=%08x\n",
>
> Looking at this more closely, there's still some information obfuscation
> going on.
>
> How about "... a={} o={} n={} v=..."
>
> so affinity, old and new masks are all stated explicitly, instead of
> having to remember what the square brackets mean, and in particular that
> the masks are backwards?
Just one question: Why put old ahead of new? Aiui that's what you refer to
with "backwards", yet I don't see what's backwards about it. Old would
possibly matter only when the IRQ was recently moved, whereas new (actually:
Why "new"?) would matter at all times. I'd see "... a={} m={} o={} v=..."
as more appropriate.
Jan
