Re: [PATCH 1/2]: nfit: Clarify memory device state flags strings
From: Ross Zwisler <hidden>
Date: 2015-08-27 03:07:44
Also in:
lkml, nvdimm
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:20:23AM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
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.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ 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?