On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 06:16:42PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 09:49:59PM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:27 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 07:56:10PM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote: ... > > The existing one should be more important than the added one. > > But the order of output will not match with the value for page->flags. > > E.g. > > flags=0x17ffffc0010200(slab|head,Node 0,Zone 2,Lastcpupid 0x1fffff) > > It may be strange to compare the value with the string. > > More I'm looking at it, more I'm thinking it should have different specifiers > for each group of desired flags to be printed. > > So, you leave %pGp as is and then add another letter to add more details, so > user will choose what and in which order they want. > > For example, let's assume %pGp == %pGpf and P is a new specifier for what you > are initially adding here: > > %pGpfP => referenced|uptodate|lru|active|private,Node 0,Zone 2 > %pGpPf => Node 0,Zone 2,referenced|uptodate|lru|active|private > > and so on. And I agree with Matthew about format, but it doesn't oppose my suggestion above. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
