linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/25] lmb: Print new doubled array location info

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <201006291458.28495.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:58:27 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/25] lmb: Print new doubled array location info

On Tuesday, June 29, 2010 02:03:21 pm Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 06/29/2010 10:44 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:26:32 am Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> +	if (lmb_debug)
> >> +		pr_info("lmb: %s array is doubled to %ld at %llx - %llx",
> >> +			 lmb_type_name(type), type->max * 2, (u64)addr, (u64)addr + new_size);
> > 
> > Please print this memory range the same way we print resources, e.g.,
> > "%#010llx-%#010llx", with "addr" and "addr + new_size - 1".
> 
> ok, I will put # for 0x.
> 
> but i like to have
> 
> xxx - yyy : to include end
> [xxx, yyy - 1]
> 
> just like current e820 print out.
> and it would be more readable without too many ffff

I think it's stupid to use two different conventions for printing
address ranges.  That just makes extra mental work for people
comparing e820 ranges with %pR resources.

I don't personally care that much whether we pick the convention of
including the end (like the current e820 output) or the convention of
excluding it (like %pR and /proc/iomem do), but whatever we pick, we
should use it consistently.

To me, the fact that /proc/iomem is user-visible and excludes the end
is a pretty strong argument for adopting that convention.

And I think you should remove the extra spaces in "xxx - yyy".
There's no reason to be different when we could be consistent.

Bjorn
--
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/