linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memblock: Use __func__ in remaining 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 6 Jan 2020 08:04:09 +0200
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memblock: Use __func__ in remaining memblock_dbg() call
 sites

On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 10:08:30AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> Replace open function name strings with %s (__func__) in all remaining
> memblock_dbg() call sites.
> 
> Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>

Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>

> ---
>  mm/memblock.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index fc0d4db1d646..eba94ee3de0b 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -694,7 +694,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
>  {
>  	phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
>  
> -	memblock_dbg("memblock_add: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n",
> +	memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__,
>  		     &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
>  
>  	return memblock_add_range(&memblock.memory, base, size, MAX_NUMNODES, 0);
> @@ -795,7 +795,7 @@ 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",
> +	memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__,
>  		     &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
>  
>  	return memblock_remove_range(&memblock.memory, base, size);
> @@ -813,7 +813,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
>  {
>  	phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
>  
> -	memblock_dbg("   memblock_free: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n",
> +	memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__,
>  		     &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
>  
>  	kmemleak_free_part_phys(base, size);
> @@ -824,7 +824,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
>  {
>  	phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
>  
> -	memblock_dbg("memblock_reserve: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n",
> +	memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__,
>  		     &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
>  
>  	return memblock_add_range(&memblock.reserved, base, size, MAX_NUMNODES, 0);
> -- 
> 2.20.1
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.