On Tuesday, June 29, 2010 02:03:21 pm Yinghai Lu wrote: > On 06/29/2010 10:44 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:26:32 am Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> + if (lmb_debug) > >> + pr_info("lmb: %s array is doubled to %ld at %llx - %llx", > >> + lmb_type_name(type), type->max * 2, (u64)addr, (u64)addr + new_size); > > > > Please print this memory range the same way we print resources, e.g., > > "%#010llx-%#010llx", with "addr" and "addr + new_size - 1". > > ok, I will put # for 0x. > > but i like to have > > xxx - yyy : to include end > [xxx, yyy - 1] > > just like current e820 print out. > and it would be more readable without too many ffff I think it's stupid to use two different conventions for printing address ranges. That just makes extra mental work for people comparing e820 ranges with %pR resources. I don't personally care that much whether we pick the convention of including the end (like the current e820 output) or the convention of excluding it (like %pR and /proc/iomem do), but whatever we pick, we should use it consistently. To me, the fact that /proc/iomem is user-visible and excludes the end is a pretty strong argument for adopting that convention. And I think you should remove the extra spaces in "xxx - yyy". There's no reason to be different when we could be consistent. Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html