[RFC V2 01/14] mm: Abstract printing of pxd_val()

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 5/19/26 16:28, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/12/26 21:45, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>  	if (!p4d_present(p4d) || p4d_leaf(p4d)) {
>> -		pr_alert("pgd:%08llx p4d:%08llx\n", pgdv, p4dv);
>> +		pr_alert("pgd:%" __PRIpxx " p4d:%" __PRIpxx "\n",
>> +			 __PRIpxx_args(pgdv), __PRIpxx_args(p4dv));
>>  		return;
>>  	}
> 
> That's not the most readable result. Could a printk() format specifier
> make this nicer? Maybe use "%pT"?
> 
> 	pr_alert("pgd:%pT p4d:%pT\n", &pgd, &p4d);
> 
> I _think_ it could even get rid of the p??v variables.

That would be nicer indeed, if that works.

-- 
Cheers,

David