linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] tracing/events: modify kmem print to new format

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:06:56 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	Jiaying Zhang <jiayingz@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] tracing/events: modify kmem print to new format

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 09:12:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 21:45 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > +#define show_gfp_flags(end...)						\
> > +	"0=GFP_NOWAIT,"							\
> > +	"0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s," \
> > +	"0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s," \
> > +	"0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s," \
> > +	"0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s>" end ,					\
> > +	(unsigned long)GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE,	"GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE", \
> > +	(unsigned long)GFP_HIGHUSER,		"GFP_HIGHUSER",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)GFP_USER,		"GFP_USER",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)GFP_TEMPORARY,		"GFP_TEMPORARY",	\
> > +	(unsigned long)GFP_KERNEL,		"GFP_KERNEL",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)GFP_NOFS,		"GFP_NOFS",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)GFP_ATOMIC,		"GFP_ATOMIC",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)GFP_NOIO,		"GFP_NOIO",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_HIGH,		"GFP_HIGH",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_WAIT,		"GFP_WAIT",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_IO,		"GFP_IO",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_COLD,		"GFP_COLD",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_NOWARN,		"GFP_NOWARN",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_REPEAT,		"GFP_REPEAT",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_NOFAIL,		"GFP_NOFAIL",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_NORETRY,		"GFP_NORETRY",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_COMP,		"GFP_COMP",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_ZERO,		"GFP_ZERO",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_NOMEMALLOC,	"GFP_NOMEMALLOC",	\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_HARDWALL,		"GFP_HARDWALL",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_THISNODE,		"GFP_THISNODE",		\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_RECLAIMABLE,	"GFP_RECLAIMABLE",	\
> > +	(unsigned long)__GFP_MOVABLE,		"GFP_MOVABLE"
> 
> Just curious, how unhappy does stuff become when we add a __GFP_ flag
> and forget to extend this table?
> 

If it's the same behaviour as what I was looking at yesterday, it prints
the remaining flags it doesn't recognise as the number.

GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_DMA got outputted as |GFP_KERNEL|0x1|

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/