Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 01 Feb 2021 19:36:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject:     Re: [PATCH] arch_numa: fix common code printing of phys_addr_t
In-Reply-To: <20210128035533.23722-1-rdunlap@infradead.org>
CC:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, lkp@intel.com,
        Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@wdc.com>
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
To:     rdunlap@infradead.org
Message-ID: <mhng-ea6bdfae-f473-448f-80df-5042b2a5cf83@palmerdabbelt-glaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:55:33 PST (-0800), rdunlap@infradead.org wrote:
> Fix build warnings in the arch_numa common code:
>
> ../include/linux/kern_levels.h:5:18: warning: format '%Lx' expects argument of type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 3 has type 'phys_addr_t' {aka 'unsigned int'} [-Wformat=]
> ../drivers/base/arch_numa.c:360:56: note: format string is defined here
>   360 |    pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
> ../drivers/base/arch_numa.c:435:39: note: format string is defined here
>   435 |  pr_info("Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n", start, end - 1);
>
> Fixes: ae3c107cd8be ("numa: Move numa implementation to common code")
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Cc: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
> Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>
> ---
>  drivers/base/arch_numa.c |   13 +++++++------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux-next-20210125.orig/drivers/base/arch_numa.c
> +++ linux-next-20210125/drivers/base/arch_numa.c
> @@ -355,11 +355,12 @@ static int __init numa_register_nodes(vo
>  	/* Check that valid nid is set to memblks */
>  	for_each_mem_region(mblk) {
>  		int mblk_nid = memblock_get_region_node(mblk);
> +		phys_addr_t start = mblk->base;
> +		phys_addr_t end = mblk->base + mblk->size - 1;
>
>  		if (mblk_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || mblk_nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
> -			pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
> -				mblk_nid, mblk->base,
> -				mblk->base + mblk->size - 1);
> +			pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %pap-%pap]\n",
> +				mblk_nid, &start, &end);
>  			return -EINVAL;
>  		}
>  	}
> @@ -427,14 +428,14 @@ out_free_distance:
>  static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
>  {
>  	phys_addr_t start = memblock_start_of_DRAM();
> -	phys_addr_t end = memblock_end_of_DRAM();
> +	phys_addr_t end = memblock_end_of_DRAM() - 1;
>  	int ret;
>
>  	if (numa_off)
>  		pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
> -	pr_info("Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n", start, end - 1);
> +	pr_info("Faking a node at [mem %pap-%pap]\n", &start, &end);
>
> -	ret = numa_add_memblk(0, start, end);
> +	ret = numa_add_memblk(0, start, end + 1);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		pr_err("NUMA init failed\n");
>  		return ret;

Thanks, this is on for-next.  Did you, by any chance, find %Lx documented
anywhere?  It's not ISO C and the GCC source code says it's a GNU extension,
but I couldn't find it in the documentation (or even where to add it, which I
guess is how I forgot to send my version fo the patch).