Re: [PATCH v3 19/21] scsi: fnic: Switch to use %ptSp

[Petr Mladek]

On Thu 2025-11-13 15:32:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Use %ptSp instead of open coded variants to print content of
> struct timespec64 in human readable format.

I was about to commit the changes into printk/linux.git and
found a mistake during the final double check, see below.

> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_trace.c b/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_trace.c
> index cdc6b12b1ec2..0a849a195a8e 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_trace.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_trace.c
> @@ -215,30 +213,26 @@ int fnic_get_stats_data(struct stats_debug_info *debug,
>  {
>  	int len = 0;
>  	int buf_size = debug->buf_size;
> -	struct timespec64 val1, val2;
> +	struct timespec64 val, val1, val2;
>  	int i = 0;
>  
> -	ktime_get_real_ts64(&val1);
> +	ktime_get_real_ts64(&val);
>  	len = scnprintf(debug->debug_buffer + len, buf_size - len,
>  		"------------------------------------------\n"
>  		 "\t\tTime\n"
>  		"------------------------------------------\n");
>  
> +	val1 = timespec64_sub(val, stats->stats_timestamps.last_reset_time);
> +	val2 = timespec64_sub(val, stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time);
>  	len += scnprintf(debug->debug_buffer + len, buf_size - len,
> -		"Current time :          [%lld:%ld]\n"
> -		"Last stats reset time:  [%lld:%09ld]\n"
> -		"Last stats read time:   [%lld:%ld]\n"
> -		"delta since last reset: [%lld:%ld]\n"
> -		"delta since last read:  [%lld:%ld]\n",
> -	(s64)val1.tv_sec, val1.tv_nsec,
> -	(s64)stats->stats_timestamps.last_reset_time.tv_sec,
> -	stats->stats_timestamps.last_reset_time.tv_nsec,
> -	(s64)stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time.tv_sec,
> -	stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time.tv_nsec,
> -	(s64)timespec64_sub(val1, stats->stats_timestamps.last_reset_time).tv_sec,
> -	timespec64_sub(val1, stats->stats_timestamps.last_reset_time).tv_nsec,
> -	(s64)timespec64_sub(val1, stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time).tv_sec,
> -	timespec64_sub(val1, stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time).tv_nsec);
> +			 "Current time :          [%ptSp]\n"
> +			 "Last stats reset time:  [%ptSp]\n"
> +			 "Last stats read time:   [%ptSp]\n"
> +			 "delta since last reset: [%ptSp]\n"
> +			 "delta since last read:  [%ptSp]\n",

Both delta times are printed at the end.

> +			 &val,
> +			 &stats->stats_timestamps.last_reset_time, &val1,
> +			 &stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time, &val2);

I think that this should be:

			 &stats->stats_timestamps.last_reset_time,
			 &stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time,
			 &val1, &val2);

>  	stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time = val1;

The original code stored the current time in "val1". This should be:

	stats->stats_timestamps.last_read_time = val;

> @@ -416,8 +410,8 @@ int fnic_get_stats_data(struct stats_debug_info *debug,
>  	jiffies_to_timespec64(stats->misc_stats.last_ack_time, &val2);

Just for record. Another values are stored into @val1 and @val2 at
this point.

>  	len += scnprintf(debug->debug_buffer + len, buf_size - len,
> -		  "Last ISR time: %llu (%8llu.%09lu)\n"
> -		  "Last ACK time: %llu (%8llu.%09lu)\n"
> +		  "Last ISR time: %llu (%ptSp)\n"
> +		  "Last ACK time: %llu (%ptSp)\n"
>  		  "Max ISR jiffies: %llu\n"
>  		  "Max ISR time (ms) (0 denotes < 1 ms): %llu\n"
>  		  "Corr. work done: %llu\n"
> @@ -437,10 +431,8 @@ int fnic_get_stats_data(struct stats_debug_info *debug,
>  		  "Number of rport not ready: %lld\n"
>  		 "Number of receive frame errors: %lld\n"
>  		 "Port speed (in Mbps): %lld\n",
> -		  (u64)stats->misc_stats.last_isr_time,
> -		  (s64)val1.tv_sec, val1.tv_nsec,
> -		  (u64)stats->misc_stats.last_ack_time,
> -		  (s64)val2.tv_sec, val2.tv_nsec,
> +		  (u64)stats->misc_stats.last_isr_time, &val1,
> +		  (u64)stats->misc_stats.last_ack_time, &val2,

So, this is correct!

>  		  (u64)atomic64_read(&stats->misc_stats.max_isr_jiffies),
>  		  (u64)atomic64_read(&stats->misc_stats.max_isr_time_ms),
>  		  (u64)atomic64_read(&stats->misc_stats.corr_work_done),


Now, I think that there is no need to resend the entire huge patchset.

I could either fix this when comitting or commit the rest and
you could send only this patch for review.

Best Regards,
Petr

PS: All other patches look good. Well, nobody acked 7th patch yet.
    But I think that the change is pretty straightforward and
    we could do it even without an ack.