From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E65C433E0 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 12:56:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57B96204EF for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 12:56:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.b="JI1at74G" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 57B96204EF Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49WYqy1w2pzDqSL for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 22:56:30 +1000 (AEST) Received: from ozlabs.org (bilbo.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49WYmT2kHhzDqJ8 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 22:53:29 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201909 header.b=JI1at74G; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49WYmR1NcJz9sSk; Tue, 26 May 2020 22:53:27 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ellerman.id.au; s=201909; t=1590497607; bh=EtQztu5NmCVqCIZyOPV1ACDAhtqa29TG/2fKZ5rLLpM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=JI1at74GbvNS0bVZEFf4OJViTkUOEyGb9fPhmr2DTYm5O7v0GBZG/v95TXx6OEi/3 TJvX6neupQJbZFN5DwEeJCflq/AdfjG4KX2SVWUFJGqapba3Qhl9Th4l/pmHEIetbk WPgw4N5388UQGaJPyZ2DAM+ns5FY1MpNoEA/+N4r3AWzP3n6gh1s58vWvPV4giPXQs U6A98J/W8N/M0+FtXA/bEWw785sz4tDDsyqxXmwwC2Rj/dzm/CKtM5rvxXsM/W6xNj Dxj+d3NsG23J/wrpteipjywiqGmjwQcXbj2l+RDakBFQju9YkcBSK8UFtWDvzB5a21 3gPpFoBMjaWCQ== From: Michael Ellerman To: Christophe Leroy , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/45] powerpc/ptdump: Limit size of flags text to 1/2 chars on PPC32 In-Reply-To: References: <83a7a0cfca6198e63caf7a16839bd18454961f52.1589866984.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> <87h7w4fvcy.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 22:53:50 +1000 Message-ID: <87zh9ueu1t.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Christophe Leroy writes: > Le 25/05/2020 =C3=A0 07:15, Michael Ellerman a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: >> Christophe Leroy writes: >>> In order to have all flags fit on a 80 chars wide screen, >>> reduce the flags to 1 char (2 where ambiguous). >>=20 >> I don't love this, the output is less readable. Is fitting on an 80 char >> screen a real issue for you? I just make my terminal window bigger. > > I don't have strong opinion about that, and the terminal can be made bigg= er. > I just don't like how messy it is, some flags are so big that they hide=20 > other ones and getting it more ordered and more compact helped me during= =20 > all the verifications I did with this series, but we can leave it as is=20 > if you prefer. I think I do. > Would you like a v5 without patches 7 and 8 ? Or I can just resend the=20 > patches that will be impacted, that is 9 and 38 ? I dropped 7 and 8 and then fixed up 9 and 38, it was easy enough. I used "coherent" and "huge". > With the change I get. > > ---[ Start of kernel VM ]--- > 0xc0000000-0xc0ffffff 0x00000000 16M h r x p sh a > 0xc1000000-0xc7ffffff 0x01000000 112M h rw p sh d a > ---[ vmalloc() Area ]--- > 0xc9000000-0xc9003fff 0x050e4000 16K rw p sh d a > 0xc9008000-0xc900bfff 0x050ec000 16K rw p sh d a > 0xc9010000-0xc9013fff 0xd0000000 16K rw p i g sh d a > 0xc9018000-0xc901bfff 0x050f0000 16K rw p sh d a It's definitely more compact :) But I worry no one other than you will be able to decipher it, without constantly referring back to the source code. cheers