[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a17Mik-J-PzjP2g7OzX-0ozTGnRxfw8tB4c+pKiRWoEaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:02:31 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>,
Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
Su Yue <suy.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix size_t format string
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年07月17日 21:52, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> The newly added check_block_group_item() function causes a build warning
>> on 32-bit architectures:
>>
>> fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c: In function 'check_block_group_item':
>> fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c:404:41: error: format '%lu' expects argument of type 'long unsigned int', but argument 6 has type 'unsigned int' [-Werror=format=]
>>
>> The type of a sizeof() expression is size_t, which is correctly printed
>> using the %zu format string.
>>
>> Fixes: 9dc16aad5660 ("btrfs: tree-checker: Verify block_group_item")
>
> My fault again. :(
>
> Is there anyway to make gcc report such problem even under x86_64?
I don't think so. However, if you post a patch to the mainling list, the
0-day bot should report any build regressions within a day.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists