Re: [PATCH 1/5] Revert "kmemtrace: fix printk format warnings"

Randy.Dunlap
2008-08-19T19:32:33Z

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:51:32AM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu wrote:
> >
> > > This reverts commit 79cf3d5e207243eecb1c4331c569e17700fa08fa.
> > >
> > > The reverted commit, while it fixed printk format warnings, it resulted in
> > > marker-probe format mismatches. Another approach should be used to fix
> > > these warnings.
> >
> > Such as what?
> >
> > Can marker probes be fixed instead?

Did you answer this?

> > After seeing & fixing lots of various warnings in the last few days,
> > I'm thinking that people don't look at/heed warnings nowadays. Sad.
> > Maybe there are just so many that they are lost in the noise.
>
> Hi,
>
> Check the next patch in the series, it provides the alternate fix.

Yep, I saw that later.

> I favor this approach more because it involves fewer changes and we
> don't have to use things like "%zu" (which make data type size less
> apparent).

%zu is regular C language. I.e., I don't get the data type not being
apparent issue...

Maybe kmemtrace should just make everything be long long... :(

--
~Randy