From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:41:16 -0400 Subject: [RFC 07/23] mm/memblock: debug: correct displaying of upper memory boundary In-Reply-To: <20131013180227.GD5253@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <1381615146-20342-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <1381615146-20342-8-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <20131013180227.GD5253@mtj.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <525C028C.8040900@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sunday 13 October 2013 02:02 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 05:58:50PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> From: Grygorii Strashko >> >> When debugging is enabled (cmdline has "memblock=debug") the memblock >> will display upper memory boundary per each allocated/freed memory range >> wrongly. For example: >> memblock_reserve: [0x0000009e7e8000-0x0000009e7ed000] _memblock_early_alloc_try_nid_nopanic+0xfc/0x12c >> >> The 0x0000009e7ed000 is displayed instead of 0x0000009e7ecfff >> >> Hence, correct this by changing formula used to calculate upper memory >> boundary to (u64)base + size - 1 instead of (u64)base + size everywhere >> in the debug messages. > > I kinda prefer base + size because it's easier to actually know the > size but yeah, it should have been [base, base + size) and other > places use base + size - 1 notation so it probably is better to stick > to that. Maybe move this one to the beginning of the series? > > Acked-by: Tejun Heo > Thanks. Will do