From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934338AbeEIItY (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2018 04:49:24 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:34707 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934147AbeEIItT (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2018 04:49:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 10:49:16 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Minchan Kim Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML , linux-mm Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: print memblock_remove Message-ID: <20180509084916.GK32366@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180508104223.8028-1-minchan@kernel.org> <20180509081214.GE32366@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180509081825.GA220810@rodete-desktop-imager.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180509081825.GA220810@rodete-desktop-imager.corp.google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 09-05-18 17:18:25, Minchan Kim wrote: > 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 > > > --- > > > 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_); OK, I see. Then we probably need some mass replacement as well. Anyway Acked-by: Michal Hocko for this one. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs