> -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Fleming [mailto:matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 9:51 AM > To: Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory) <elliott@xxxxxxx> > Cc: tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxxxxx; hpa@xxxxxxxxx; x86@xxxxxxxxxx; > linux-efi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/efi: show actual ending addresses in > efi_print_memmap > > 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 <elliott@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > 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. The format of that line is architecture-specific and only appears under the efi=debug kernel parameter, so I don't know how much anyone relies on the specific format. Good question for the lists. arch/ia64/kernel/efi.c shares the range=[...) format, but prints the range after the bitmask rather than before: printk("mem%02d: %s " "range=[0x%016lx-0x%016lx) (%4lu%s)\n", i, efi_md_typeattr_format(buf, sizeof(buf), md), md->phys_addr, md->phys_addr + efi_md_size(md), size, unit); arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c has no mem prefix, or range=[...) text surrounding the range: pr_info(" 0x%012llx-0x%012llx %s", paddr, paddr + (npages << EFI_PAGE_SHIFT) - 1, efi_md_typeattr_format(buf, sizeof(buf), md)); pr_cont("*"); pr_cont("\n"); The x86 code is inside ifdef EFI_DEBUG, which is always defined in that file. I wonder if it was supposed to change to efi_enabled(EFI_DBG) to be based off the efi=debug kernel parameter? efi_init() qualified the call to this function based on that: if (efi_enabled(EFI_DBG)) efi_print_memmap(); In arch/ia64/kernel/efi.c efi_init(), EFI_DEBUG is set to 0 so the print doesn't happen at all without editing the source code. It doesn't use efi_enabled(EFI_DBG). arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c uses efi_enabled(EFI_DBG) exclusively. --- Robert Elliott, HPE Persistent Memory -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
