Re: Large block device patch, part 1 of 9

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Followup to:  <E17mJZh-0005jw-00@starship>
By author:    Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
> We've been through this before.  Last time, the winning solution was:
> 
>    printk("at least %lli of your u64s are belong to us\n", (long long) sect_num);
> 
> and I expect it will be this time too.  It's just a printk!  Who cares if it
> wastes a few bytes.  It's even conceivable that if we use this idiom heavily
> enough, some gcc boffin will take the time to optimize away the useless
> conversions.
> 

Why can't we use the C99 standard:

printk("at least %ji of your u64s are belong to us\n", (uintmax_t) sect_num);

I, for one, would be rather happy at having <inttypes.h> available in
the kernel, as either an alternative or instead of the [su]XX/__[su]XX types.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>