From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/17] sym53c8xx: Get rid of IRQ_FMT and IRQ_PRM Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 09:44:14 -0600 Message-ID: <20071009154413.GH13842@parisc-linux.org> References: <11916141143747-git-send-email-matthew@wil.cx> <11916141153666-git-send-email-matthew@wil.cx> <4706A5C3.6000005@garzik.org> <20071009152846.GF13842@parisc-linux.org> <470B9FB2.9010300@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:42671 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753235AbXJIPoO (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:44:14 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <470B9FB2.9010300@garzik.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 11:35:14AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Not true. The original code used 'int irq', and the printf format was > correct as a result. > > You changed the code to use 'unsigned int irq' as found in struct > pci_dev, without changing IRQ_FMT as needed. > > If you wanted to avoid the regression another way, I suppose patch #1 > should update IRQ_FMT to use "%u", and patch #14 should move the "%u" > use to its caller. What do you think the regression is, exactly? The *only* difference in how vsnprintf handles %d vs %u is the sign bit. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."