lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:30:28 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> Cc: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace: Make trace_hwlat timestamp y2038 safe On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:53:09 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote: > > Actually, I believe that "%zd" will work. It's made to work with size_t > > which is long long on 32 and long on 64. > > size_t is always 'long', not 'long long'. We have %pad for dma_addr_t > which may be 'long' or 'long long', but it is configuration dependent > which one it is on 32-bit. Ah your right. It was that it was defined as "int" on 32 and "long" on 64, and that caused problems with warnings when using "%d" when it was defined as long. > > We could probably introduce a %pts format string for timespec64 > and have that pretty-printed. Hmm, probably don't want a %p as that suggests its a pointer, which it should not be. Unless we pass in the address of the number. -- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists