On 04/30/2015 12:17 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 04:56:24PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > This teaches our printing functions about a new family of MM pointer that it
>> > could now print.
>> >
>> > I've picked %pZ because %pm and %pM were already taken, so I figured it
>> > doesn't really matter what we go with. We also have the option of stealing
>> > one of those two...
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > lib/vsprintf.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
>> > index 8243e2f..809d19d 100644
>> > --- a/lib/vsprintf.c
>> > +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c
>> > @@ -1375,6 +1375,16 @@ char *comm_name(char *buf, char *end, struct task_struct *tsk,
>> > return string(buf, end, name, spec);
>> > }
>> >
>> > +static noinline_for_stack
>> > +char *mm_pointer(char *buf, char *end, struct task_struct *tsk,
>> > + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt)
>> > +{
>> > + switch (fmt[1]) {
> shouldn't we printout at least pointer address for unknown suffixes?
Sure, we can. We can also add a WARN() to make that failure obvious (there's
no reason to use an unrecognised %pZ* format on purpose).
Thanks,
Sasha
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>