linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: print memblock

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

Message-ID: <20180509081825.GA220810@rodete-desktop-imager.corp.google.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 May 2018 17:18:25 +0900
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: print memblock_remove

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 10:12:14AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 08-05-18 19:42:23, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > memblock_remove report is useful to see why MemTotal of /proc/meminfo
> > between two kernels makes difference.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  mm/memblock.c | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> > index 5228f594b13c..03d48d8835ba 100644
> > --- a/mm/memblock.c
> > +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> > @@ -697,6 +697,11 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_remove_range(struct memblock_type *type,
> >  
> >  int __init_memblock memblock_remove(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> >  {
> > +	phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
> > +
> > +	memblock_dbg("memblock_remove: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n",
> > +		     &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> 
> Other callers of memblock_dbg use %pF. Is there any reason to be
> different here?

checkpatch hit me.

WARNING: Deprecated vsprintf pointer extension '%pF' - use %pS instead
#24: FILE: mm/memblock.c:702:
+       memblock_dbg("memblock_remove: [%pa-%pa] %pF\n",
+                    &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);

> 
> Other that that looks ok to me.

Thanks, Michal.