From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751367AbbLUQGf (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:06:35 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:34024 "EHLO mail-wm0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750965AbbLUQGd (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:06:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:06:29 +0000 From: Matt Fleming To: Robert Elliott Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/efi: show actual ending addresses in efi_print_memmap Message-ID: <20151221160629.GF4227@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <1450402114-3606-1-git-send-email-elliott@hpe.com> <1450402114-3606-2-git-send-email-elliott@hpe.com> <20151221155038.GD4227@codeblueprint.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151221155038.GD4227@codeblueprint.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 21 Dec, at 03:50:38PM, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Thu, 17 Dec, at 07:28:31PM, Robert Elliott wrote: > > Adjust efi_print_memmap to print the real end address of each > > range, not 1 byte beyond. This matches other prints like those for > > SRAT and nosave memory. > > > > Change the closing ) to ] to match the opening [. > > > > old: > > efi: mem61: [Persistent Memory | | | | | | | |WB|WT|WC|UC] range=[0x0000000880000000-0x0000000c80000000) (16384MB) > > > > new: > > efi: mem61: [Persistent Memory | | | | | | | |WB|WT|WC|UC] range=[0x0000000880000000-0x0000000c7fffffff] (16384MB) > > > > Example other address range prints: > > SRAT: Node 1 PXM 1 [mem 0x480000000-0x87fffffff] > > PM: Registered nosave memory: [mem 0x880000000-0xc7fffffff] > > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Elliott > > --- > > arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Is this change purely for aesthetic reasons? We're usually not in the > habit of changing the output of print messages without a good reason > because people downstream do rely on them being consistent. I just noticed the bracket change. My comment above only refers to printing the range addresses. Swapping ')' for ']' is a perfectly valid change.