Re: [PATCH] APEI/ERST: Fix error message formatting

From: Bjorn Helgaas
Date: Wed Jul 31 2013 - 14:00:40 EST

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Naveen N. Rao
<naveen.n.rao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> My key question was about why we are using a field width of 10 implying a
> 32-bit value, rather than a field width of 18 as suggested by the data type?
> This shouldn't truncate the value, but if we are specifying the field width
> for alignment, seems to me it is better to match the data type.

%pR uses a field width of 10 (two for "0x", eight for the value)
simply because the majority of resource values fit in 32 bits. Larger
values extend the width, so it's not a question of truncating any
data. But it's no fun to read memory addresses when most of them have
eight extra leading zeros (the high 32-bits of a 64-bit value). I
think the same applies here; most ACPI table addresses still fit in 32

We *do* use a field width of 18 for the e820 table, even though many
of those regions fit in 32 bits. But that's sort of an exception
because it's a table where addresses above 4GB are pretty common.

But at the end of the day, I guess I'm just stating my personal
preferences and yours might be different.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at