linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] x86/PCI: Tidy E820 removal messages

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: <Y5OBfjKXFc5d88i1@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2022 20:42:06 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Florent DELAHAYE <kernelorg@...ead.fr>,
        Konrad J Hambrick <kjhambrick@...il.com>,
        Matt Hansen <2lprbe78@...k.com>,
        Benoit Grégoire <benoitg@...us.ca>,
        Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@...look.com.au>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Werner Sembach <wse@...edocomputers.com>,
        mumblingdrunkard@...tonmail.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] x86/PCI: Tidy E820 removal messages

On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 01:03:40PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
> 
> These messages:
> 
>   clipped [mem size 0x00000000 64bit] to [mem size 0xfffffffffffa0000 64bit] for e820 entry [mem 0x0009f000-0x000fffff]
> 
> aren't as useful as they could be because (a) the resource is often
> IORESOURCE_UNSET, so we print the size instead of the start/end and (b) we
> print the available resource even if it is empty after removing the E820
> entry.
> 
> Print the available space by hand to avoid the IORESOURCE_UNSET problem and
> only if it's non-empty.  No functional change intended.

...

> +			if (avail->end > avail->start)
> +				pr_info("resource: remaining [mem %#010llx-%#010llx] available\n",
> +					(unsigned long long) avail->start,
> +					(unsigned long long) avail->end);

Is there any point why we do not use %pa for resource_size_t parameters?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko