linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] raid: fix printk format warnings

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <17722.60989.448470.587430@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Date:	Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:06:21 +1000
From:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, akpm <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] raid: fix printk format warnings

On Saturday October 21, randy.dunlap@...cle.com wrote:
> From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
> 
> Fix printk format warnings, seen on powerpc64:
> drivers/md/raid1.c:1479: warning: long long unsigned int format, long unsigned int arg (arg 4)
> drivers/md/raid10.c:1475: warning: long long unsigned int format, long unsigned int arg (arg 4)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
> ---
> 
>  drivers/md/raid1.c  |    4 ++--
>  drivers/md/raid10.c |    4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -Naurp linux-2619-rc2g4/drivers/md/raid1.c~raid_printk linux-2619-rc2g4/drivers/md/raid1.c
> --- linux-2619-rc2g4/drivers/md/raid1.c~raid_printk	2006-10-21 11:16:30.066109000 -0700
> +++ linux-2619-rc2g4/drivers/md/raid1.c	2006-10-21 11:20:57.288004000 -0700
> @@ -1474,8 +1474,8 @@ static void fix_read_error(conf_t *conf,
>  					       "raid1:%s: read error corrected "
>  					       "(%d sectors at %llu on %s)\n",
>  					       mdname(mddev), s,
> -					       (unsigned long long)sect +
> -					           rdev->data_offset,
> +					       (unsigned long long)(sect +
> +					           rdev->data_offset),
>  					       bdevname(rdev->bdev,
> b));

So you're saying that if you add an 'unsigned long long int' to an
'unsigned long int', the result is an 'unsigned long int'???
That is not what I would have expected.
I'm happy with the patch, but I'm very surprised that it is needed.
Is this behaviour consistent across various versions of gcc (if it is
convenient to check)??

Thanks,
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/