Re: [PATCH] arch_numa: fix common code printing of phys_addr_t

From: Palmer Dabbelt
Date: Tue Feb 02 2021 - 15:11:10 EST


On Mon, 01 Feb 2021 19:51:07 PST (-0800), rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 2/1/21 7:36 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:55:33 PST (-0800), rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Fix build warnings in the arch_numa common code:

../include/linux/kern_levels.h:5:18: warning: format '%Lx' expects argument of type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 3 has type 'phys_addr_t' {aka 'unsigned int'} [-Wformat=]
../drivers/base/arch_numa.c:360:56: note: format string is defined here
  360 |    pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
../drivers/base/arch_numa.c:435:39: note: format string is defined here
  435 |  pr_info("Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n", start, end - 1);

Fixes: ae3c107cd8be ("numa: Move numa implementation to common code")
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Atish Patra <atish.patra@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/base/arch_numa.c |   13 +++++++------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

--- linux-next-20210125.orig/drivers/base/arch_numa.c
+++ linux-next-20210125/drivers/base/arch_numa.c
@@ -355,11 +355,12 @@ static int __init numa_register_nodes(vo
     /* Check that valid nid is set to memblks */
     for_each_mem_region(mblk) {
         int mblk_nid = memblock_get_region_node(mblk);
+        phys_addr_t start = mblk->base;
+        phys_addr_t end = mblk->base + mblk->size - 1;

         if (mblk_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || mblk_nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
-            pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
-                mblk_nid, mblk->base,
-                mblk->base + mblk->size - 1);
+            pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %pap-%pap]\n",
+                mblk_nid, &start, &end);
             return -EINVAL;
         }
     }
@@ -427,14 +428,14 @@ out_free_distance:
 static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
 {
     phys_addr_t start = memblock_start_of_DRAM();
-    phys_addr_t end = memblock_end_of_DRAM();
+    phys_addr_t end = memblock_end_of_DRAM() - 1;
     int ret;

     if (numa_off)
         pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
-    pr_info("Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n", start, end - 1);
+    pr_info("Faking a node at [mem %pap-%pap]\n", &start, &end);

-    ret = numa_add_memblk(0, start, end);
+    ret = numa_add_memblk(0, start, end + 1);
     if (ret) {
         pr_err("NUMA init failed\n");
         return ret;

Thanks, this is on for-next.  Did you, by any chance, find %Lx documented
anywhere?  It's not ISO C and the GCC source code says it's a GNU extension,
but I couldn't find it in the documentation (or even where to add it, which I
guess is how I forgot to send my version fo the patch).

'man sprintf' says this:

As a nonstandard extension, the GNU implementations treats ll and L as
synonyms, so that one can, for example, write llg (as a synonym for the
standards-compliant Lg) and Ld (as a synonym for the standards compli-
ant lld). Such usage is nonportable.


and linux/lib/vsprintf.c has some handling for it:

if (qualifier == 'L')
spec->type = FORMAT_TYPE_LONG_LONG;

and

case 'L':
if (is_sign)
*va_arg(args, long long *) = val.s;
else
*va_arg(args, unsigned long long *) = val.u;
break;


Does that help?

The manpage does it, I guess I just wasn't reading closely enough. Thanks!