From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F5E56B0007 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 09:05:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id c2-v6so2186088edi.20 for ; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 06:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o18-v6si1433980edf.261.2018.07.04.06.05.02 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Jul 2018 06:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 15:05:00 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: replace u64 with phys_addr_t where appropriate Message-ID: <20180704130500.GP22503@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1530637506-1256-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1530637506-1256-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm , lkml , Matthew Wilcox On Tue 03-07-18 20:05:06, Mike Rapoport wrote: > Most functions in memblock already use phys_addr_t to represent a physical > address with __memblock_free_late() being an exception. > > This patch replaces u64 with phys_addr_t in __memblock_free_late() and > switches several format strings from %llx to %pa to avoid casting from > phys_addr_t to u64. > > CC: Michal Hocko > CC: Matthew Wilcox > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport > --- > mm/memblock.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c > index 03d48d8..20ad8e9 100644 > --- a/mm/memblock.c > +++ b/mm/memblock.c > @@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_double_array(struct memblock_type *type, > { > struct memblock_region *new_array, *old_array; > phys_addr_t old_alloc_size, new_alloc_size; > - phys_addr_t old_size, new_size, addr; > + phys_addr_t old_size, new_size, addr, new_end; > int use_slab = slab_is_available(); > int *in_slab; > > @@ -391,9 +391,9 @@ static int __init_memblock memblock_double_array(struct memblock_type *type, > return -1; > } > > - memblock_dbg("memblock: %s is doubled to %ld at [%#010llx-%#010llx]", > - type->name, type->max * 2, (u64)addr, > - (u64)addr + new_size - 1); > + new_end = addr + new_size - 1; > + memblock_dbg("memblock: %s is doubled to %ld at [%pa-%pa]", > + type->name, type->max * 2, &addr, &new_end); I didn't get to check this carefully but this surely looks suspicious. I am pretty sure you wanted to print the value here rather than address of the local variable, right? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs