[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19f34abd0905060220l2dc241b2j45e4bd127bacade3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:20:17 +0200
From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: printk %0*X is broken.
2009/5/6 Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>:
>> Vegard Nossum wrote:
>>> 2009/5/6 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>:
>>>> Cc:-ed more folks who modified lib/vsprintf.c recently.
>>>>
>>>> Ingo
>>>>
>>>> * Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> it seems someone broke
>>>>>
>>>>> printk( "%0*X\n", width, x);
>>>>>
>>>>> looks like 0 is dumped.
>>> After %, we look for flags. The problem is that when a flag is found, we
>>> don't advance in the format string. And thus we start looking for the
>>> precision, which is read as 0, because we are still at the 0. I think
>>> this patch should fix it.
>>>
>
> No, we break out of the while loop when we can't find a flag,
> So we are at '*' after we found '0'.
> Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> It seems that your patch does not change anything.
>> The code logic is still the same as before.
Oh really? So sorry, I didn't look close enough :-(
Vegard
--
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