Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 4/7] xen/arm: early_print_info print reserved_mem

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 8/13/19 3:28 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
> > 
> > Stefano Stabellini writes:
> > 
> > > Improve early_print_info to also print the banks saved in
> > > bootinfo.reserved_mem. Print them right after RESVD, increasing the same
> > > index.
> > > 
> > > Since we are at it, also switch the existing RESVD print to use unsigned
> > > int.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xilinx.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr.babchuk@epam.com>

Thanks


> > But, please see NIT below.
> > 
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v5:
> > > - switch to unsigned
> > > 
> > > Changes in v4:
> > > - new patch
> > > ---
> > >   xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > >   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> > > index 0b0e22a3d0..32153e6207 100644
> > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
> > > @@ -337,9 +337,10 @@ static int __init early_scan_node(const void *fdt,
> > >   static void __init early_print_info(void)
> > >   {
> > >       struct meminfo *mi = &bootinfo.mem;
> > > +    struct meminfo *mem_resv = &bootinfo.reserved_mem;
> > >       struct bootmodules *mods = &bootinfo.modules;
> > >       struct bootcmdlines *cmds = &bootinfo.cmdlines;
> > > -    int i, nr_rsvd;
> > > +    unsigned int i, j, nr_rsvd;
> > >         for ( i = 0; i < mi->nr_banks; i++ )
> > >           printk("RAM: %"PRIpaddr" - %"PRIpaddr"\n",
> > > @@ -361,9 +362,15 @@ static void __init early_print_info(void)
> > >               continue;
> > >           /* fdt_get_mem_rsv returns length */
> > >           e += s;
> > > -        printk(" RESVD[%d]: %"PRIpaddr" - %"PRIpaddr"\n",
> > > +        printk(" RESVD[%u]: %"PRIpaddr" - %"PRIpaddr"\n",
> > >                        i, s, e);
> > NIT: I see no reason, why this printk is split into two lines, as nicely
> > fits
> > into one line.
> 
> Not mentioning the wrong indentation in pretty much all this function ;). I
> would prefer if we take care of the indentation issues in a patch before this
> one.

I'll add a patch

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel