[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180621064322.GE19319@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 23:43:22 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Zong Li <zong@...estech.com>
Cc: palmer@...ive.com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
greentime@...estech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] RISC-V: Use fixed width integer types for 32-bit
compatible
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 09:41:46AM +0800, Zong Li wrote:
> Use fixed width integer types for print format on 32/64 bit
> to fix warning about format compatible.
>
> Like inttypes.h, but more simpler for RISC-V usage.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zong Li <zong@...estech.com>
> ---
> arch/riscv/include/asm/format.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> arch/riscv/kernel/module.c | 13 +++++++------
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 arch/riscv/include/asm/format.h
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/format.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/format.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..9b68ca7fac46
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/format.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> +/* Copyright (C) 2018 Andes Technology Corporation */
> +
> +#ifndef _ASM_RISCV_FORMAT_H
> +#define _ASM_RISCV_FORMAT_H
> +
> +#if __riscv_xlen == 64
> +#define __PRI_PREFIX "ll"
> +#else
> +#define __PRI_PREFIX
> +#endif
> +
> +#define PRIdX __PRI_PREFIX "d"
> +#define PRIiX __PRI_PREFIX "i"
> +#define PRIuX __PRI_PREFIX "u"
> +#define PRIoX __PRI_PREFIX "o"
> +#define PRIxX __PRI_PREFIX "x"
> +#define PRIXX __PRI_PREFIX "X"
> +
> +#endif /* _ASM_RISCV_FORMAT_H */
If you want these prefixed submit them to the core kernel, not
under asm/ for RISC-V.
>
> static int apply_r_riscv_32_rela(struct module *me, u32 *location, Elf_Addr v)
> {
> if (v != (u32)v) {
> - pr_err("%s: value %016llx out of range for 32-bit field\n",
> + pr_err("%s: value %016" PRIxX "out of range for 32-bit field\n",
> me->name, v);
> return -EINVAL;
But in general Linux uXX and sXX values are always the same underlying
fundamental C type. What is the mismatch here?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists