mm/memblock: print memblock_remove
PATCH 1/1 mm/memblock: print memblock_remove
memblock_remove report is useful to see why MemTotal of /proc/meminfo between two kernels makes difference.
--- mm/memblock.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
mm/memblock.c +5 -0
@@ -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_); +return memblock_remove_range (&memblock.memory, base, size); }
Signature · 1 line
2.17.0.441.gb46fe60e1d-goog
Quoted 13 lines · Minchan Kim
memblock_removereport is useful to see why MemTotal of/proc/meminfobetween two kernels makes difference.Signed-off-by Minchan Kim <[email protected]>--- mm/memblock.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)mm/memblock.c +0
-0
mm/memblock.c static int __init_memblock memblock_remove_range(struct memblock_type *type, · line 703
Quoted 7 lines
mm/memblock.c +4
-0@@ -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?
Other that that looks ok to me.
Signature · 2 lines
Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Quoted 15 lines · Michal Hocko
Quoted 14 lines · Minchan Kim
memblock_removereport is useful to see why MemTotal of/proc/meminfobetween two kernels makes difference.Signed-off-by Minchan Kim <[email protected]>--- mm/memblock.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)mm/memblock.c +0
-0@@ -697,6 +697,11 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_remove_range(struct memblock_type *type,
Quoted 9 lines
mm/memblock.c static int __init_memblock memblock_remove_range(struct memblock_type *type, · line 703
Quoted 6 lines
mm/memblock.c +4
-0int __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_dbguse %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_);
Quoted 2 lines
Other that that looks ok to me.
Thanks, Michal.
Michal Hocko
Acked-byQuoted 30 lines · Minchan Kim
Quoted 15 lines · Michal Hocko
Quoted 14 lines · Minchan Kim
memblock_removereport is useful to see why MemTotal of/proc/meminfobetween two kernels makes difference.Signed-off-by Minchan Kim <[email protected]>--- mm/memblock.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)mm/memblock.c +0
-0@@ -697,6 +697,11 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_remove_range(struct memblock_type *type,Quoted 9 lines
mm/memblock.c static int __init_memblock memblock_remove_range(struct memblock_type *type, · line 703
Quoted 6 lines
mm/memblock.c +4
-0int __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_dbguse %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:
Review
Quoted 2 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+ 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
for this one.
Signature · 2 lines
Michal Hocko SUSE Labs