From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FAE56B0010 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 09:29:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id g16-v6so2207904edq.10 for ; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 06:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a17-v6si744033edn.115.2018.07.04.06.29.06 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Jul 2018 06:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 15:29:05 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: replace u64 with phys_addr_t where appropriate Message-ID: <20180704132905.GS22503@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1530637506-1256-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180704130500.GP22503@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180704132410.GH4352@rapoport-lnx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180704132410.GH4352@rapoport-lnx> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm , lkml , Matthew Wilcox On Wed 04-07-18 16:24:11, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 03:05:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > 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? > > It's the semantics of %pa: > > Physical address types phys_addr_t > ---------------------------------- > > :: > > %pa[p] 0x01234567 or 0x0123456789abcdef > > For printing a phys_addr_t type (and its derivatives, such as > resource_size_t) which can vary based on build options, regardless of the > width of the CPU data path. > > Passed by reference. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the clarification! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs