[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <525C028C.8040900@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:41:16 -0400
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: "yinghai@...nel.org" <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Strashko, Grygorii" <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 07/23] mm/memblock: debug: correct displaying of upper memory
boundary
On Sunday 13 October 2013 02:02 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 05:58:50PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
>>
>> When debugging is enabled (cmdline has "memblock=debug") the memblock
>> will display upper memory boundary per each allocated/freed memory range
>> wrongly. For example:
>> memblock_reserve: [0x0000009e7e8000-0x0000009e7ed000] _memblock_early_alloc_try_nid_nopanic+0xfc/0x12c
>>
>> The 0x0000009e7ed000 is displayed instead of 0x0000009e7ecfff
>>
>> Hence, correct this by changing formula used to calculate upper memory
>> boundary to (u64)base + size - 1 instead of (u64)base + size everywhere
>> in the debug messages.
>
> I kinda prefer base + size because it's easier to actually know the
> size but yeah, it should have been [base, base + size) and other
> places use base + size - 1 notation so it probably is better to stick
> to that. Maybe move this one to the beginning of the series?
>
> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
>
Thanks. Will do
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists