From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935022AbXGSAUQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:20:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761652AbXGSAUF (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:20:05 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:54663 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761954AbXGSAUD (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:20:03 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:18:59 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: NeilBrown , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [NFS] [PATCH 013 of 20] knfsd: nfsd: factor out code from show_expflags Message-Id: <20070718171859.8d1276fd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070718230555.GN7111@fieldses.org> References: <20070710121949.12548.patches@notabene> <1070710022737.13509@suse.de> <20070713002933.f15724a7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070718230555.GN7111@fieldses.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:05:55 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 12:29:33AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:27:37 +1000 NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > +static void exp_flags(struct seq_file *m, int flag, int fsid, > > > + uid_t anonu, uid_t anong, struct nfsd4_fs_locations *fsloc) > > > +{ > > > + show_expflags(m, flag, NFSEXP_ALLFLAGS); > > > if (flag & NFSEXP_FSID) > > > - seq_printf(m, "%sfsid=%d", first++?",":"", fsid); > > > + seq_printf(m, ",fsid=%d", fsid); > > > if (anonu != (uid_t)-2 && anonu != (0x10000-2)) > > > - seq_printf(m, "%sanonuid=%d", first++?",":"", anonu); > > > + seq_printf(m, ",sanonuid=%d", anonu); > > > > It's a bit presumptuous to print a uid_t with "%d". Fortunately it > > will work OK with all the present architectures. > > > > But in general: be cautious when feeding opaque types to printk. > > OK, here I'm still confused--what should we be doing instead? > Nothing? I was just having a little self-muse. If one was really anal, one could typecast it to an unsigned long long in the printk, then feel smug when we switch to 64-bit uid's.