linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] x86/efi: print size and base in binary units in efi_print

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]

Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:29:41 +0200
From:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc:	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Robert Elliott <elliott@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] x86/efi: print size and base in binary units in efi_print_memmap

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan, at 09:32:26AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Andy Shevchenko
>> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

…

>> > old:
>> >     efi: mem61: [Persistent Memory  |   |  |  |  |  |  |   |WB|WT|WC|UC] range=[0x0000000880000000-0x0000000c7fffffff) (16384MB)
>> >
>> > new:
>> >     efi: mem61: [Persistent Memory  |   |  |  |  |  |  |   |WB|WT|WC|UC] range=[0x0000000880000000-0x0000000c7fffffff] (16 GiB @ 34 GiB)
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Robert Elliott <elliott@....com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
>>
>> Matt, seems another approach is not in favour, which means we rather
>> stick with this one. But see one comment below.
>
> Thanks Andy. I like the below patch (with the included space), but as
> I said when reviewing Robert's version, I'm really not in favour of
> the "@ address" portition of the string.
>
> Andy, could you submit a v2 with the space fix and without the @
> <addr> bit?

Will do soon.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko