lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: tidy e820 output
Date
On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 03:07:00 pm Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 09/22/2010 12:11 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

> > -static void __init e820_print_type(u32 type)
> > +static char * __init e820_type_name(u32 type)
> > {
> > switch (type) {
> > case E820_RAM:
> > case E820_RESERVED_KERN:
> > - printk(KERN_CONT "(usable)");
> > - break;
> > + return "usable";
> > case E820_RESERVED:
> > - printk(KERN_CONT "(reserved)");
> > - break;
> > + return "reserved";
> > case E820_ACPI:
> > - printk(KERN_CONT "(ACPI data)");
> > - break;
> > + return "ACPI data";
> > case E820_NVS:
> > - printk(KERN_CONT "(ACPI NVS)");
> > - break;
> > + return "ACPI NVS";
> > case E820_UNUSABLE:
> > - printk(KERN_CONT "(unusable)");
> > - break;
> > - default:
> > - printk(KERN_CONT "type %u", type);
> > - break;
> > + return "unusable";
> > }
> > + return "(unknown)";
> > }
>
> type value?

I decided the code simplification was worth skipping the type.
I'd certainly rather have the type value, too, but I don't know
how much hassle to go through to debug a firmware problem. How
important do you think it is?

Bjorn


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-22 23:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans