[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120523084639.bbc57455a6527c9cb983fb2d@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:46:39 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Guenter Roeck <guenter@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Aaron Sierra <asierra@...-inc.com>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the mfd tree
Hi guys,
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:37:04 -0700 Guenter Roeck <guenter@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>
> >I don't think we have a clear standard yet, but I'm fine with either
> >one of them.
>
> Me too, though %04lx and typecast to long should really be sufficient.
>
> I'd guess the change was made because resource_size_t is sometimes a long
> and sometimes a long long, depending on the platform. I hit that
> problem a couple of times myself.
Exactly. Since resource_size_t can be either 32 bit or 64 bit on 32 bit
platforms, you must print it as %llx and cast it to u64 always to
prevent these warnings. If you cast it to (unsigned) long you could
possibly truncate the value.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists