Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/APIC: modify error_interrupt() to output using single printk()

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 13.07.2023 18:47, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 03:12:55PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 17.03.2023 20:53, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/apic.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/apic.c
>>> @@ -1419,12 +1420,13 @@ static void cf_check error_interrupt(struct 
>>> cpu_user_regs *regs)
>>>      v1 = apic_read(APIC_ESR);
>>>      ack_APIC_irq();
>>>  
>>> -    printk(XENLOG_DEBUG "APIC error on CPU%u: %02x(%02x)",
>>> -            smp_processor_id(), v , v1);
>>>      for ( i = 7; i >= 0; --i )
>>> -        if ( v1 & (1 << i) )
>>> -            printk("%s", esr_fields[i]);
>>> -    printk("\n");
>>> +        entries[i] = v1 & (1 << i) ? esr_fields[i] : "";
>>> +    printk(XENLOG_DEBUG "APIC error on CPU%u: %02x(%02x)"
>>> +        "%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s" "\n",
>>> +        smp_processor_id(), v , v1,
>>> +        entries[7], entries[6],
>>> +        entries[5], entries[4], entries[3], entries[2], entries[1], 
>>> entries[0]);
>>
>> While pre-existing in both cases, two nits: There's a stray blank before one
>> of the commas, and indentation is wrong too.
> 
> I don't see anything which could be called an indentation error.  The
> very first added line is attached to the `for ()`, therefore it correctly
> has one more indent.

It's the printk() invocation, where all continued lines lacked another 3
blanks.

Jan