From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgw-ext13.nokia.com ([131.228.20.172]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.62 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1GcPag-0003lV-2K for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:57:37 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] MTD: fix printk format warning From: Artem Bityutskiy To: "Randy.Dunlap" In-Reply-To: <453E315B.8090801@oracle.com> References: <20061023214826.d54fc7c6.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <1161681850.3260.167.camel@sauron> <20061024100245.GA21695@home.fluff.org> <453E315B.8090801@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:57:13 +0300 Message-Id: <1161709033.3260.188.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: akpm , Ben Dooks , dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 08:29 -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > which I suppose is what Artem missed. I.e., it's not always unsigned lon= g. > However, I won't deny that gcc seems odd here. I just wanted to say that (unsigned long)a - b + 1 has "unsigned long" type even if "a" and "b" are u32 or u64. I would have understood you if you had said that you cut "a" because of the u64->unsigned long casting, but I understood that the rationale for the change was to fix print format warning... --=20 Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E=D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=90= =D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC)