[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1379639226.5862.9.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:07:06 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@...ox.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] lib: Add error string support to printks
On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 20:27 -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
> if I use ERR_PTR() on a signed int on a x86_64 where pointer
> is 64 bits and int is 32, wouldn't that mean a signed conversion
> instruction where the sign bit has to be moved from bit 31 to 63?
No. It's cast to long
static inline void * __must_check ERR_PTR(long error)
{
return (void *) error;
}
> Either way, %pE does seem to make a lot of sense for conditions where we
> already have a pointer that we would otherwise use PTR_ERR() to convert,
> but it just seems klunky to use it on an int, to have it treated like a
> pointer and then re-interpreted as an int. Maybe we can add %pE as well
> as %dE and leave [ioxXu] out of it?
I think having just one way to format is better.
--
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