Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] x86/PCI: Tidy E820 removal messages

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>]

On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 02:34:28PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 08:42:06PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 01:03:40PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

...

> > > +			if (avail->end > avail->start)
> > > +				pr_info("resource: remaining [mem %#010llx-%#010llx] available\n",
> > > +					(unsigned long long) avail->start,
> > > +					(unsigned long long) avail->end);
> > 
> > Is there any point why we do not use %pa for resource_size_t parameters?
> 
> Only my ignorance :)  Thanks for pointing that out; I changed it to
> this and added a comment about why:

> +			pr_info("resource: avoiding allocation from e820 entry [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
> +				e820_start, e820_end);
> +			if (avail->end > avail->start)
> +				/*
> +				 * Use %pa instead of %pR because "avail"
> +				 * is typically IORESOURCE_UNSET, so %pR
> +				 * shows the size instead of addresses.
> +				 */
> +				pr_info("resource: remaining [mem %pa-%pa] available\n",
> +					&avail->start, &avail->end);

LGTM, thanks!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko