On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 12:57:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 20:05:06 +0300 Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > @@ -1343,9 +1343,9 @@ void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw(
> > {
> > void *ptr;
> >
> > - memblock_dbg("%s: %llu bytes align=0x%llx nid=%d from=0x%llx max_addr=0x%llx %pF\n",
> > - __func__, (u64)size, (u64)align, nid, (u64)min_addr,
> > - (u64)max_addr, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> > + memblock_dbg("%s: %llu bytes align=0x%llx nid=%d from=%pa max_addr=%pa %pF\n",
> > + __func__, (u64)size, (u64)align, nid, &min_addr,
> > + &max_addr, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> >
>
> Did you see all this checkpatch noise?
>
> : WARNING: Deprecated vsprintf pointer extension '%pF' - use %pS instead
> : #54: FILE: mm/memblock.c:1348:
> : + memblock_dbg("%s: %llu bytes align=0x%llx nid=%d from=%pa max_addr=%pa %pF\n",
> : + __func__, (u64)size, (u64)align, nid, &min_addr,
> : + &max_addr, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> : ...
> :
Sorry, my bad...
> * - 'S' For symbolic direct pointers (or function descriptors) with offset
> * - 's' For symbolic direct pointers (or function descriptors) without offset
> * - 'F' Same as 'S'
> * - 'f' Same as 's'
>
> I'm not sure why or when all that happened.
>
> I suppose we should do that as a separate patch sometime.
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
