Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 May 2018 17:18:25 +0900 | From | Minchan Kim <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: print memblock_remove |
| |
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 10:12:14AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 08-05-18 19:42:23, Minchan Kim wrote: > > memblock_remove report is useful to see why MemTotal of /proc/meminfo > > between two kernels makes difference. > > > > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> > > --- > > mm/memblock.c | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c > > index 5228f594b13c..03d48d8835ba 100644 > > --- a/mm/memblock.c > > +++ b/mm/memblock.c > > @@ -697,6 +697,11 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_remove_range(struct memblock_type *type, > > > > int __init_memblock memblock_remove(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > > { > > + phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > > + > > + memblock_dbg("memblock_remove: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", > > + &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > > Other callers of memblock_dbg use %pF. Is there any reason to be > different here?
checkpatch hit me.
WARNING: Deprecated vsprintf pointer extension '%pF' - use %pS instead #24: FILE: mm/memblock.c:702: + memblock_dbg("memblock_remove: [%pa-%pa] %pF\n", + &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> > Other that that looks ok to me.
Thanks, Michal.
| |