From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-f175.google.com (mail-qc0-f175.google.com [209.85.216.175]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60FFE6B0032 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by qcyk17 with SMTP id k17so31876280qcy.1 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w77si2216494qgw.25.2015.04.30.09.44.11 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55425BD1.4030009@oracle.com> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:44:01 -0400 From: Sasha Levin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC 02/11] mm: debug: deal with a new family of MM pointers References: <1429044993-1677-1-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com> <1429044993-1677-3-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com> <20150430161728.GA17344@node.dhcp.inet.fi> In-Reply-To: <20150430161728.GA17344@node.dhcp.inet.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org 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 >> > --- >> > 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@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org