Re: Large block device patch, part 1 of 9

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> > The printk warnings should be easy to fix once everybody uses the same
> > types - I think we right now have workarounds exactly for 64-bit machines
> > where w check BITS_PER_LONG and use different formats for them (exactly
> > because they historically have _not_ had the same types as the 32-bit
> > machines).
> > 
> > However, if anybody on the list is hacking gcc, the best option really
> > would be to just allow better control over gcc printf formats. I have
> > wanted that in user space too at times. And it doesn't matter if it only
> > happens in new versions of gcc - we can disable the warning altogether for
> > old gcc's, as long as enough people have the new gcc to catch new
> > offenders..
> > 
> > (I'd _love_ to be able to add printk modifiers for other common types in
> > the kernel, like doing the NIPQUAD thing etc inside printk() instead of
> > having it pollute the callers. All of which has been avoided because of
> > the hardcoded gcc format warning..)
> > 
> 
> While we're talking about printk()... is there any reason *not* to
> rename it printf()?

I believe printf() is good idea. I put printk() into userland programs
too many times now, and used printf() too many times from kernel...

								Pavel 

-- 
Worst form of spam? Adding advertisment signatures ala sourceforge.net.
What goes next? Inserting advertisment *into* email?