Messages in this thread | | | From | Bjorn Helgaas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: tidy e820 output | Date | Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:22:06 -0600 |
| |
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
| |