[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170327113028.7f74c9b8@gandalf.local.home>
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