| Message ID | 20211122092825.2502306-1-andr2000@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] rangeset: add RANGESETF_no_print flag | expand |
On 22.11.21 11:28, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@epam.com> > > There are range sets which should not be printed, so introduce a flag > which allows marking those as such. Implement relevant logic to skip > such entries while printing. > > Suggested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> > Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@epam.com> > --- > xen/common/rangeset.c | 3 +++ > xen/include/xen/rangeset.h | 3 +++ > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/xen/common/rangeset.c b/xen/common/rangeset.c > index 885b6b15c229..939883a1d145 100644 > --- a/xen/common/rangeset.c > +++ b/xen/common/rangeset.c > @@ -575,6 +575,9 @@ void rangeset_domain_printk( > > list_for_each_entry ( r, &d->rangesets, rangeset_list ) > { > + if ( r->flags & RANGESETF_no_print ) > + continue; > + > printk(" "); > rangeset_printk(r); > printk("\n"); > diff --git a/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h b/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h > index 135f33f6066f..543540a88b6f 100644 > --- a/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h > +++ b/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h > @@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ void rangeset_limit( > /* Pretty-print range limits in hexadecimal. */ > #define _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex 0 > #define RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex (1U << _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex) > +/* Do not print entries marked with this flag. */ > +#define _RANGESETF_no_print 1 > +#define RANGESETF_no_print (1U << _RANGESETF_no_print) > > bool_t __must_check rangeset_is_empty( > const struct rangeset *r); This will also require: diff --git a/xen/common/rangeset.c b/xen/common/rangeset.c index 939883a1d145..ea27d651723b 100644 --- a/xen/common/rangeset.c +++ b/xen/common/rangeset.c @@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ struct rangeset *rangeset_new( INIT_LIST_HEAD(&r->range_list); r->nr_ranges = -1; - BUG_ON(flags & ~RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex); + BUG_ON(flags & ~(RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex | RANGESETF_no_print)); r->flags = flags; Or we just remove BUG_ON now Thank you, Oleksandr
On 22.11.2021 10:28, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > --- a/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h > +++ b/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h > @@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ void rangeset_limit( > /* Pretty-print range limits in hexadecimal. */ > #define _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex 0 > #define RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex (1U << _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex) > +/* Do not print entries marked with this flag. */ > +#define _RANGESETF_no_print 1 There's no need for this, so I'd like to ask that you add ... > +#define RANGESETF_no_print (1U << _RANGESETF_no_print) ... just this. In due course we should do away with _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex as well (unless you want to do so right at this occasion). Jan
On 23.11.21 09:38, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 22.11.2021 10:28, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >> --- a/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h >> +++ b/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h >> @@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ void rangeset_limit( >> /* Pretty-print range limits in hexadecimal. */ >> #define _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex 0 >> #define RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex (1U << _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex) >> +/* Do not print entries marked with this flag. */ >> +#define _RANGESETF_no_print 1 > There's no need for this, so I'd like to ask that you add ... > >> +#define RANGESETF_no_print (1U << _RANGESETF_no_print) > ... just this. In due course we should do away with > _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex as well (unless you want to do so right > at this occasion). Ok, I can remove "#define _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex 0" as well and have both flags defined as /* Pretty-print range limits in hexadecimal. */ #define RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex (1U << 0) /* Do not print entries marked with this flag. */ #define RANGESETF_no_print (1U << 1) Or we can use BIT macro here: /* Pretty-print range limits in hexadecimal. */ #define RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex BIT(0, U) /* Do not print entries marked with this flag. */ #define RANGESETF_no_print BIT(1, U) What's your preference here? > > Jan > Thank you, Oleksandr
On 23.11.2021 08:49, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > > > On 23.11.21 09:38, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 22.11.2021 10:28, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >>> --- a/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h >>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h >>> @@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ void rangeset_limit( >>> /* Pretty-print range limits in hexadecimal. */ >>> #define _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex 0 >>> #define RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex (1U << _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex) >>> +/* Do not print entries marked with this flag. */ >>> +#define _RANGESETF_no_print 1 >> There's no need for this, so I'd like to ask that you add ... >> >>> +#define RANGESETF_no_print (1U << _RANGESETF_no_print) >> ... just this. In due course we should do away with >> _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex as well (unless you want to do so right >> at this occasion). > Ok, I can remove "#define _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex 0" as well > and have both flags defined as > /* Pretty-print range limits in hexadecimal. */ > #define RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex (1U << 0) > /* Do not print entries marked with this flag. */ > #define RANGESETF_no_print (1U << 1) > > Or we can use BIT macro here: > > /* Pretty-print range limits in hexadecimal. */ > #define RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex BIT(0, U) > /* Do not print entries marked with this flag. */ > #define RANGESETF_no_print BIT(1, U) > > What's your preference here? Clearly the former. But this may not be everybody's view. I'm hesitant towards further uses at least as long as its generalization, GENMASK(), isn't ready for easy use. It was some time ago that we had a discussion about that one, supporting my reservations voiced back at the time when it was introduced into our code base. Iirc there was more than one issue with it; the immediately obvious one is that it silently does the wrong thing when the arguments get specified the wrong way round, when it really would be relatively easy to support either ordering. Jan
On 23.11.21 10:01, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 23.11.2021 08:49, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >> >> On 23.11.21 09:38, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 22.11.2021 10:28, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h >>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h >>>> @@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ void rangeset_limit( >>>> /* Pretty-print range limits in hexadecimal. */ >>>> #define _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex 0 >>>> #define RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex (1U << _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex) >>>> +/* Do not print entries marked with this flag. */ >>>> +#define _RANGESETF_no_print 1 >>> There's no need for this, so I'd like to ask that you add ... >>> >>>> +#define RANGESETF_no_print (1U << _RANGESETF_no_print) >>> ... just this. In due course we should do away with >>> _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex as well (unless you want to do so right >>> at this occasion). >> Ok, I can remove "#define _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex 0" as well >> and have both flags defined as >> /* Pretty-print range limits in hexadecimal. */ >> #define RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex (1U << 0) >> /* Do not print entries marked with this flag. */ >> #define RANGESETF_no_print (1U << 1) >> >> Or we can use BIT macro here: >> >> /* Pretty-print range limits in hexadecimal. */ >> #define RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex BIT(0, U) >> /* Do not print entries marked with this flag. */ >> #define RANGESETF_no_print BIT(1, U) >> >> What's your preference here? > Clearly the former. I am fine with this too, so I'll use it > But this may not be everybody's view. I'm hesitant > towards further uses at least as long as its generalization, GENMASK(), > isn't ready for easy use. It was some time ago that we had a discussion > about that one, supporting my reservations voiced back at the time when > it was introduced into our code base. Iirc there was more than one > issue with it; the immediately obvious one is that it silently does the > wrong thing when the arguments get specified the wrong way round, when > it really would be relatively easy to support either ordering. > > Jan > Thank you, Oleksandr
diff --git a/xen/common/rangeset.c b/xen/common/rangeset.c index 885b6b15c229..939883a1d145 100644 --- a/xen/common/rangeset.c +++ b/xen/common/rangeset.c @@ -575,6 +575,9 @@ void rangeset_domain_printk( list_for_each_entry ( r, &d->rangesets, rangeset_list ) { + if ( r->flags & RANGESETF_no_print ) + continue; + printk(" "); rangeset_printk(r); printk("\n"); diff --git a/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h b/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h index 135f33f6066f..543540a88b6f 100644 --- a/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h +++ b/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h @@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ void rangeset_limit( /* Pretty-print range limits in hexadecimal. */ #define _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex 0 #define RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex (1U << _RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex) +/* Do not print entries marked with this flag. */ +#define _RANGESETF_no_print 1 +#define RANGESETF_no_print (1U << _RANGESETF_no_print) bool_t __must_check rangeset_is_empty( const struct rangeset *r);