Re: [PATCH] intel_iommu: Fix two misuse of "0x%u" prints

["Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>]

* Peter Xu (peterx@redhat.com) wrote:
> Dave magically found this.  Fix them with "0x%x".
> 
> Reported-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>

> ---
>  hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> index 749eb6ad63..70ac837733 100644
> --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> @@ -2665,7 +2665,7 @@ static uint64_t vtd_mem_read(void *opaque, hwaddr addr, unsigned size)
>  
>      if (addr + size > DMAR_REG_SIZE) {
>          error_report_once("%s: MMIO over range: addr=0x%" PRIx64
> -                          " size=0x%u", __func__, addr, size);
> +                          " size=0x%x", __func__, addr, size);
>          return (uint64_t)-1;
>      }
>  
> @@ -2716,7 +2716,7 @@ static void vtd_mem_write(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
>  
>      if (addr + size > DMAR_REG_SIZE) {
>          error_report_once("%s: MMIO over range: addr=0x%" PRIx64
> -                          " size=0x%u", __func__, addr, size);
> +                          " size=0x%x", __func__, addr, size);
>          return;
>      }
>  
> -- 
> 2.26.2
> 
-- 
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK