linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5 v2] x86 boot: show pfn addresses in hex not decimal in some kernel info printks

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080625105612.55fde5f0.cesati@uniroma2.it>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:56:12 +0200
From:	Marco Cesati <cesati@...roma2.it>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, hpa@...or.com, yhlu.kernel@...il.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
	steiner@....com, travis@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ying.huang@...el.com, andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5 v2] x86 boot: show pfn addresses in hex not decimal
 in some kernel info printks

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I'd be inclined instead to use "%P" for symbolic addrs.
> That doesn't work - gcc warns about it.
> 
> That turns out to be a problem with %#p too. 

I believe that using "%-p" instead of "%#p" would work.
The canonical meaning of "%-p" should be the very same as 
"%p", but gcc should not complain because it is
ready to parse a format string like "%-10p" (which is of
course different than "%10p").

A bit too tricky, perhaps?!

Tested on gcc 4.1.2.

	Marco

-- 
Marco Cesati <cesati@...roma2.it>
Universita' degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata - DISP
via del Politecnico 1, 00133 Roma
--
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/