[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080411074631.GB6410@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:46:31 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, mingo <mingo@...hat.com>,
tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for April 10 (arch/x86)
* Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote:
> Fix printk formats in x86/mm/ioremap.c:
>
> next-20080410/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c:137: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 2 has type 'resource_size_t'
> next-20080410/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c:188: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 2 has type 'resource_size_t'
> next-20080410/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c:188: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 3 has type 'long unsigned int'
thanks, applied.
> if (!phys_addr_valid(phys_addr)) {
> printk(KERN_WARNING "ioremap: invalid physical address %llx\n",
> - phys_addr);
> + (unsigned long long)phys_addr);
is there really no way to solve this more cleanly than a forced cast? It
is a totally uninteresting warning that we pass in a narrower type to
printk(). It cannot ever cause any bugs or problems. Why does gcc warn
about it?
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists