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    [W:0.030 / U:0.204 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site