On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 12:57:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 20:05:06 +0300 Mike Rapoport <[email protected]> > 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.
