Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: print memblock_remove

[Michal Hocko]

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 <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  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 <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
for this one.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs