[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808191229330.7877@shark.he.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu <eduard.munteanu@...ux360.ro>
cc: "Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mpm@...enic.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, tzanussi@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Revert "kmemtrace: fix printk format warnings"
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:51:32AM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu wrote:
> >
> > > This reverts commit 79cf3d5e207243eecb1c4331c569e17700fa08fa.
> > >
> > > The reverted commit, while it fixed printk format warnings, it resulted in
> > > marker-probe format mismatches. Another approach should be used to fix
> > > these warnings.
> >
> > Such as what?
> >
> > Can marker probes be fixed instead?
Did you answer this?
> > After seeing & fixing lots of various warnings in the last few days,
> > I'm thinking that people don't look at/heed warnings nowadays. Sad.
> > Maybe there are just so many that they are lost in the noise.
>
> Hi,
>
> Check the next patch in the series, it provides the alternate fix.
Yep, I saw that later.
> I favor this approach more because it involves fewer changes and we
> don't have to use things like "%zu" (which make data type size less
> apparent).
%zu is regular C language. I.e., I don't get the data type not being
apparent issue...
Maybe kmemtrace should just make everything be long long... :(
--
~Randy
--
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