[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y5OpkCs3HjIz1ghq@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 23:33:04 +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 Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 02:34:28PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 08:42:06PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 01:03:40PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
...
> > > + 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?
>
> Only my ignorance :) Thanks for pointing that out; I changed it to
> this and added a comment about why:
> + pr_info("resource: avoiding allocation from e820 entry [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
> + e820_start, e820_end);
> + if (avail->end > avail->start)
> + /*
> + * Use %pa instead of %pR because "avail"
> + * is typically IORESOURCE_UNSET, so %pR
> + * shows the size instead of addresses.
> + */
> + pr_info("resource: remaining [mem %pa-%pa] available\n",
> + &avail->start, &avail->end);
LGTM, thanks!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists