From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762282AbXLNIxI (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:53:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756537AbXLNIw5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:52:57 -0500 Received: from public.id2-vpn.continvity.gns.novell.com ([195.33.99.129]:30350 "EHLO public.id2-vpn.continvity.gns.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754489AbXLNIw4 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:52:56 -0500 Message-Id: <476252AF.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 7.0.2 HP Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:53:51 +0000 From: "Jan Beulich" To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86: clean up asm-x86/page*.h References: <47623AD6.6090403@goop.org> <47624D81.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <47624253.7060507@goop.org> In-Reply-To: <47624253.7060507@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge 14.12.07 09:44 >>> >Jan Beulich wrote: >>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault_64.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault_64.c >>> @@ -158,22 +158,22 @@ void dump_pagetable(unsigned long addres >>> pgd = __va((unsigned long)pgd & PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK); >>> pgd += pgd_index(address); >>> if (bad_address(pgd)) goto bad; >>> - printk("PGD %lx ", pgd_val(*pgd)); >>> + printk("PGD %lx ", (unsigned long)pgd_val(*pgd)); >>> >> >> Casts like this here and elsewhere look rather odd (in fact I think using >> casts should really be limited to places where you either can't do it >> differently or the code would become badly readable or much uglier >> without them). I would therefore favor simply using the right formatting >> specifier here. > >I would agree, but pgd_val() is defined as returning a pgdval_t, which >is typedefed to be unsigned long. I'll have another look, but I don't >think there's an appropriate format for this. Typedef-s can be printed with the same format specifier as the underlying type. But u64 is (at least in plain -rc5) a typedef of 'unsigned long long', so the compiler validly warns about the use of 'l' there, and I would assume it's those compiler warnings that you want to get rid of... Jan