[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53E30DFB.6090309@hanshq.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 22:26:19 -0700
From: Hans Wennborg <hans@...shq.net>
To: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/15] rtlwifi: rtl8192de: fix decimal printf format specifiers
prefixed with 0x
On 08/06/2014 07:38 AM, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 08/05/2014 11:43 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote:
>> The prefix suggests the number should be printed in hex, so use
>> the %x specifier to do that.
>>
>> Found by using regex suggested by Joe Perches.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans Wennborg <hans@...shq.net>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/fw.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/fw.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/fw.c
>> index 2317707..66e1760 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/fw.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/fw.c
>> @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ static int _rtl92d_fw_init(struct ieee80211_hw *hw)
>> rtl_read_byte(rtlpriv, FW_MAC1_READY));
>> }
>> RT_TRACE(rtlpriv, COMP_FW, DBG_DMESG,
>> - "Polling FW ready fail!! REG_MCUFWDL:0x%08ul\n",
>> + "Polling FW ready fail!! REG_MCUFWDL:0x%08lx\n",
>> rtl_read_dword(rtlpriv, REG_MCUFWDL));
>> return -1;
>> }
>
> It would be best to actually build with your patches installed. This one yields
> the following warning:
Terribly sorry about that, and thanks for catching it. I naively assumed
that the code was correct besides the decimal vs. hex issue.
> CC [M] drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/fw.o
> drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/fw.c: In function ‘_rtl92d_fw_init’:
> drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/fw.c:236:2: warning: format ‘%lx’ expects
> argument of type ‘long unsigned int’, but argument 5 has type ‘u32’ [-Wformat=]
> RT_TRACE(rtlpriv, COMP_FW, DBG_DMESG,
> ^
>
> The format specifier should be %04x, not %08lx.
Shouldn't it be %08x since it's a 32-bit value?
> I have no idea why gcc did not complain as %08ul is also wrong.
I assume the compiler would have warned about %08lu, but %08ul takes an
unsigned and just prints an l afterwards.
- Hans
--
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