On 10/05/2019 14:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.05.19 at 15:34, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2019 14:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.05.19 at 17:14, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
@@ -1030,19 +1031,19 @@ long p2m_pt_audit_p2m(struct p2m_domain *p2m)
@@ -2795,54 +2795,54 @@ void audit_p2m(struct domain *d,
spin_lock(&d->page_alloc_lock);
page_list_for_each ( page, &d->page_list )
{
- mfn = mfn_x(page_to_mfn(page));
+ mfn = page_to_mfn(page);
- P2M_PRINTK("auditing guest page, mfn=%#lx\n", mfn);
+ P2M_PRINTK("auditing guest page, mfn=%"PRI_mfn"\n", mfn_x(mfn));
od = page_get_owner(page);
if ( od != d )
{
- P2M_PRINTK("wrong owner %#lx -> %p(%u) != %p(%u)\n",
- mfn, od, (od?od->domain_id:-1), d, d->domain_id);
+ P2M_PRINTK("wrong owner %"PRI_mfn" -> %p(%u) != %p(%u)\n",
+ mfn_x(mfn), od, (od?od->domain_id:-1), d, d->domain_id);
Please be careful not to drop 0x prefixes from the resulting output
(which are an effect of the # flag that you delete), at least when
log messages contain a mix of hex and dec numbers. (I am, btw,
not convinced that switching to PRI_mfn here is helpful.)
Last time I keeped %# for MFN, I have been asked to remove the #. I prefer
having 0x for all the hex, and I am happy to be keep as is. But I would like a
bit of consistency on the way we print MFN...
Well, "%#"PRI_mfn is bogus (because of the combination with the
minimum width specification), so it ought to be "%#lx" or "0x%"PRI_mfn.
Have you really been asked for something else? If so, and if it was me,
then I apologize.
I am not sure why this is bogus. The thing is using different format for the MFN
makes it difficult to read a message without looking format string.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
