[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] console: avoid printing no or null time stamps
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 02:47:42PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > On 06/26/2018 10:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > On 26.06.18 at 10:43, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 26/06/18 08:24, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > @@ -698,26 +701,30 @@ static void printk_start_of_line(const c > > > > case TSM_DATE_MS: > > > > tm = wallclock_time(&nsec); > > > > - if ( tm.tm_mday == 0 ) > > > > - return; > > > > - > > > > - if ( opt_con_timestamp_mode == TSM_DATE ) > > > > - snprintf(tstr, sizeof(tstr), "[%04u-%02u-%02u > > > > %02u:%02u:%02u] ", > > > > - 1900 + tm.tm_year, tm.tm_mon + 1, tm.tm_mday, > > > > - tm.tm_hour, tm.tm_min, tm.tm_sec); > > > > - else > > > > + if ( tm.tm_mday ) > > > > + { > > > > snprintf(tstr, sizeof(tstr), > > > > - "[%04u-%02u-%02u %02u:%02u:%02u.%03"PRIu64"] ", > > > > + opt_con_timestamp_mode == TSM_DATE > > > > + ? "[%04u-%02u-%02u %02u:%02u:%02u] " > > > > + : "[%04u-%02u-%02u %02u:%02u:%02u.%03"PRIu64"] ", > > > > 1900 + tm.tm_year, tm.tm_mon + 1, tm.tm_mday, > > > > tm.tm_hour, tm.tm_min, tm.tm_sec, nsec / > > > > 1000000); > > > > > > I find this change rather difficult to read because the number of > > > arguments for the 2 formats are different. It would be better to keep > > > the two snprintf separately. > > > > And I find the redundancy rather ugly to maintain, so I'd prefer to stick to > > single invocation. > > Maybe it is for you. Not for me. I'm in agreement with Julien. Its not easy to follow and certainly not having the number of arguments line up looks like a "code smell" to me. -- Doug _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |