Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:44:01 -0400 | From | Sasha Levin <> | Subject | Re: [RFC 02/11] mm: debug: deal with a new family of MM pointers |
| |
On 04/30/2015 12:17 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 04:56:24PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >> > This teaches our printing functions about a new family of MM pointer that it >> > could now print. >> > >> > I've picked %pZ because %pm and %pM were already taken, so I figured it >> > doesn't really matter what we go with. We also have the option of stealing >> > one of those two... >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> >> > --- >> > lib/vsprintf.c | 13 +++++++++++++ >> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) >> > >> > diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c >> > index 8243e2f..809d19d 100644 >> > --- a/lib/vsprintf.c >> > +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c >> > @@ -1375,6 +1375,16 @@ char *comm_name(char *buf, char *end, struct task_struct *tsk, >> > return string(buf, end, name, spec); >> > } >> > >> > +static noinline_for_stack >> > +char *mm_pointer(char *buf, char *end, struct task_struct *tsk, >> > + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt) >> > +{ >> > + switch (fmt[1]) { > shouldn't we printout at least pointer address for unknown suffixes?
Sure, we can. We can also add a WARN() to make that failure obvious (there's no reason to use an unrecognised %pZ* format on purpose).
Thanks, Sasha
| |