From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([147.243.128.26] helo=mgw-da02.nokia.com)
	by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux))
	id 1QBqFo-0004f3-Oc
	for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:20:45 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] mkfs.jffs2: fix casting of __off64_t
From: Andy Shevchenko <ext-andriy.shevchenko@nokia.com>
To: ext Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi==M8mEkMd8NjyyNe_jWocZQS5_OQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1302783893.2796.27.camel@localhost>
	<802c3655ae5130e95b01e5004710f206a3d9ef9c.1303115468.git.ext-andriy.shevchenko@nokia.com>
	<2285954c62e0401291aa3f5055bc79c6789149d7.1303115468.git.ext-andriy.shevchenko@nokia.com>
	<BANLkTik3bKP4=zBgqxpN2vNTWD5V5DzKAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303134901.8589.9.camel@localhost>
	<BANLkTi=7yxRMgw+UpCZ+bmwrQw_QfFT44A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303135646.8589.12.camel@localhost>
	<1303136762.24954.12.camel@fs-test.research.nokia.com>
	<BANLkTi=DNOTANVFDvip8=RqppRCVUe08_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1303138210.24954.14.camel@fs-test.research.nokia.com>
	<BANLkTi==M8mEkMd8NjyyNe_jWocZQS5_OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:20:40 +0300
Message-ID: <1303140041.24954.17.camel@fs-test.research.nokia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, dedekind1@gmail.com
List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list <linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>

On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 10:57 -0400, ext Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 10:29 -0400, ext Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> > [1]
> >> > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/basedefs/inttypes.h.html
> >> > [2] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/printf.html
> >>
> >> on the off chance you missed it, Issue 7 is out:
> >> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/inttypes.h.html
> >
> > It's true. However it doesn't matter to our talk.
> 
> it doesnt ... i was just letting you know in case you werent aware.
> Issue 7 has a lot of fun new features.
> 
> > The question is which way is better PRIu64 or %jd.
> 
> %jd means [u]intmax_t which is not what this is ... on a 32bit system,
> int is 32bit.  we're dealing with an explicitly 64bit type (off64_t),
Accordingly to [1]

Limits of greatest-width integer types
      * Minimum value of greatest-width signed integer type:
        {INTMAX_MIN} -(2 63 -1)
      * Maximum value of greatest-width signed integer type:
        {INTMAX_MAX}  2 63 -1
      * Maximum value of greatest-width unsigned integer type:
        {UINTMAX_MAX} 2 64 -1

So, it fits to 64bit types.

> so let's go with an explicitly 64bit printf modifier.
Regarding to above I couldn't see any objection against %jd. At least
one for PRIu64 - it looks awful in code.


[1]
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/stdint.h.html


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko