From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758647Ab0KOWLv (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:11:51 -0500 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:61767 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755853Ab0KOWLu (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:11:50 -0500 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_AaH04fu+1Q3K/BE3awls0g)" Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:11:50 -0500 (EST) From: Nicolas Pitre X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Russell King - ARM Linux , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/20] ARM: LPAE: use u32 instead of unsigned long for 32-bit ptes In-reply-to: Message-id: References: <1289584840-18097-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <20101114151445.GB10871@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201011151047.37103.arnd@arndb.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) Content-id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --Boundary_(ID_AaH04fu+1Q3K/BE3awls0g) Content-id: Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-15 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On 15 November 2010 09:47, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday 15 November 2010 10:39:30 Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> > There will be compiler warnings because u32 is unsigned int, and we > >> > print it as %08lx.  Generic code cases pte values to (long long) and > >> > prints them using %08llx.  We should do the same. > >> > >> We still need some kind of macro because with LPAE we need %016llx > >> since the phys address can go to 40-bit and there are some additional > >> bits in the top word. Unless you'd like to always print 16 characters > >> even for 32-bit ptes (or if there is some other printk magic I'm not > >> aware of). > > > > Why not just %010llx? That would just be two extra characters. > > We still have attributes (like XN, bit 54) stored in the top part of > the pte. This may be of interest when debugging. They will be printed if they exist. The %010 in front of llx only means to have a minimum of 10 zero-paded digits if the value is smaller than that. However, not having aligned values will be confusing. A macro for the format might be the best compromize. Nicolas --Boundary_(ID_AaH04fu+1Q3K/BE3awls0g)-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nico@fluxnic.net (Nicolas Pitre) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:11:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [PATCH v2 03/20] ARM: LPAE: use u32 instead of unsigned long for 32-bit ptes In-Reply-To: References: <1289584840-18097-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <20101114151445.GB10871@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201011151047.37103.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On 15 November 2010 09:47, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday 15 November 2010 10:39:30 Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> > There will be compiler warnings because u32 is unsigned int, and we > >> > print it as %08lx. ?Generic code cases pte values to (long long) and > >> > prints them using %08llx. ?We should do the same. > >> > >> We still need some kind of macro because with LPAE we need %016llx > >> since the phys address can go to 40-bit and there are some additional > >> bits in the top word. Unless you'd like to always print 16 characters > >> even for 32-bit ptes (or if there is some other printk magic I'm not > >> aware of). > > > > Why not just %010llx? That would just be two extra characters. > > We still have attributes (like XN, bit 54) stored in the top part of > the pte. This may be of interest when debugging. They will be printed if they exist. The %010 in front of llx only means to have a minimum of 10 zero-paded digits if the value is smaller than that. However, not having aligned values will be confusing. A macro for the format might be the best compromize. Nicolas