Re: [PATCH 1/2]: nfit: Clarify memory device state flags strings

[Toshi Kani]

On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 21:07 -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:20:23AM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit.c
> > index c3fe206..6993ff2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit.c
> > @@ -701,12 +701,13 @@ static ssize_t flags_show(struct device *dev,
> >  {
> >  	u16 flags = to_nfit_memdev(dev)->flags;
> >  
> > -	return sprintf(buf, "%s%s%s%s%s\n",
> > -			flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_SAVE_FAILED ? "save " : 
> > "",
> > -			flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_RESTORE_FAILED ? "restore 
> > " : "",
> > -			flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_FLUSH_FAILED ? "flush " : 
> > "",
> > -			flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED ? "arm " : "",
> > -			flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_HEALTH_OBSERVED ? "smart 
> > " : "");
> > +	return sprintf(buf, "%s%s%s%s%s%s\n",
> > +		flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_SAVE_FAILED ? "save_fail " : "",
> > +		flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_RESTORE_FAILED ? "restore_fail " 
> > : "",
> > +		flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_FLUSH_FAILED ? "flush_fail " : 
> > "",
> > +		flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED ? "not_arm " : "",
> 
> Assuming we do want to update these strings to be more friendly, 

> "not_armed" probably makes more sense than "not_arm".  Also applies to the 
> 2nd hunk below.

Agreed.  (Will update if this patch gets ever resurrected. :-)

> > +		flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_HEALTH_OBSERVED ? "smart_event " > > : "",
> > +		flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_HEALTH_ENABLED ? "notify_enabled 
> > " : "");
> >  }
> >  static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(flags);
> >  
> > @@ -834,11 +835,11 @@ static int acpi_nfit_register_dimms(struct 
> > acpi_nfit_desc *acpi_desc)
> >  			continue;
> >  
> >  		dev_info(acpi_desc->dev, "%s: failed: %s%s%s%s\n",
> > -				nvdimm_name(nvdimm),
> > -			mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_SAVE_FAILED ? "save " 
> > : "",
> > -			mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_RESTORE_FAILED ? 
> > "restore " : "",
> > -			mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_FLUSH_FAILED ? "flush 
> > " : "",
> > -			mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED ? "arm " : "");
> > +		  nvdimm_name(nvdimm),
> > +		  mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_SAVE_FAILED ? "save_fail " 
> > : "",
> > +		  mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_RESTORE_FAILED ? 
> > "restore_fail ":"",
> > +		  mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_FLUSH_FAILED ? "flush_fail 
> > " : "",
> > +		  mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED ? "not_arm " : "");
> 
> While you're in here, is there a reason not to include the last two flags
> (smart_event and notify_enabled) in this dev_info() output?

This dev_info() logs any failure in NVDIMM, and the last two flags are not
failure conditions.

Thanks,
-Toshi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/