Re: [PATCH] x86: tidy e820 output

[Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>]

On 09/22/2010 02:22 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 03:07:00 pm Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On 09/22/2010 12:11 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 
>>> -static void __init e820_print_type(u32 type)
>>> +static char * __init e820_type_name(u32 type)
>>>  {
>>>  	switch (type) {
>>>  	case E820_RAM:
>>>  	case E820_RESERVED_KERN:
>>> -		printk(KERN_CONT "(usable)");
>>> -		break;
>>> +		return "usable";
>>>  	case E820_RESERVED:
>>> -		printk(KERN_CONT "(reserved)");
>>> -		break;
>>> +		return "reserved";
>>>  	case E820_ACPI:
>>> -		printk(KERN_CONT "(ACPI data)");
>>> -		break;
>>> +		return "ACPI data";
>>>  	case E820_NVS:
>>> -		printk(KERN_CONT "(ACPI NVS)");
>>> -		break;
>>> +		return "ACPI NVS";
>>>  	case E820_UNUSABLE:
>>> -		printk(KERN_CONT "(unusable)");
>>> -		break;
>>> -	default:
>>> -		printk(KERN_CONT "type %u", type);
>>> -		break;
>>> +		return "unusable";
>>>  	}
>>> +	return "(unknown)";
>>>  }
>>
>> type value?
> 
> I decided the code simplification was worth skipping the type.
> I'd certainly rather have the type value, too, but I don't know
> how much hassle to go through to debug a firmware problem.  How
> important do you think it is?

I have some systems with "type 9".

Yinghai