Message ID | 1386625856-12942-2-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 04:50:34PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> > > 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. > > Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> > Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> Very minor patch but perhaps we should Cc: stable here ? not that it matters much...
On Monday 09 December 2013 04:56 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 04:50:34PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> >> >> 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. >> >> Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> >> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> >> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> >> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> >> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> > > Very minor patch but perhaps we should Cc: stable here ? not that it > matters much... > Yeah... No major fix as such from stable perspective. regards, Santosh
diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c index 53e477b..aab5669 100644 --- a/mm/memblock.c +++ b/mm/memblock.c @@ -643,7 +643,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) { memblock_dbg(" memblock_free: [%#016llx-%#016llx] %pF\n", (unsigned long long)base, - (unsigned long long)base + size, + (unsigned long long)base + size - 1, (void *)_RET_IP_); return __memblock_remove(&memblock.reserved, base, size); @@ -655,7 +655,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) memblock_dbg("memblock_reserve: [%#016llx-%#016llx] %pF\n", (unsigned long long)base, - (unsigned long long)base + size, + (unsigned long long)base + size - 1, (void *)_RET_IP_); return memblock_add_region(_rgn, base, size, MAX_NUMNODES);