From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mg_disk: fix CONFIG_LBD=y warning Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:09:54 -0400 Message-ID: <49F74672.2090407@garzik.org> References: <1240890740-3462-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1240890740-3462-3-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <49F71E86.7040300@rtr.ca> <200904281728.58209.bzolnier@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:54188 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754039AbZD1SKE (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:10:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200904281728.58209.bzolnier@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Cc: Mark Lord , Tejun Heo , axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, donari75@gmail.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > On Tuesday 28 April 2009 17:19:34 Mark Lord wrote: >> Tejun Heo wrote: >>> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz >>> >>> drivers/block/mg_disk.c: In function =E2=80=98mg_dump_status=E2=80=99= : >>> drivers/block/mg_disk.c:265: warning: format =E2=80=98%ld=E2=80=99 = expects type =E2=80=98long int=E2=80=99, but >>> argument 2 has type =E2=80=98sector_t=E2=80=99 >>> >>> [ Impact: kill build warning ] >>> >>> Cc: unsik Kim >>> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz >>> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo >>> --- >>> drivers/block/mg_disk.c | 2 +- >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/block/mg_disk.c b/drivers/block/mg_disk.c >>> index d3e72ad..f389835 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/block/mg_disk.c >>> +++ b/drivers/block/mg_disk.c >>> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ static void mg_dump_status(const char *msg, unsig= ned int stat, >>> if (host->breq) { >>> req =3D elv_next_request(host->breq); >>> if (req) >>> - printk(", sector=3D%ld", req->sector); >>> + printk(", sector=3D%u", (u32)req->sector); >> .. >> >> Eh? Shouldn't that be fixed the other way around, like this: >> >> + printk(", sector=3D%llu", (u64)req->sector); >> >> This way, it will still give correct data when sector_t is a u64. >=20 > shouldn't matter, req->sector is never > u32 for mg_disk It never matters... until the code gets copied elsewhere. IMO wrong=20 code should never be kept -- "impossible to hit" just means it is low=20 priority :) Jeff