Re: Large block device patch, part 1 of 9

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Followup to:  <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209030113420.12861-100000@kiwi.transmeta.com>
By author:    Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
> The printk warnings should be easy to fix once everybody uses the same
> types - I think we right now have workarounds exactly for 64-bit machines
> where w check BITS_PER_LONG and use different formats for them (exactly
> because they historically have _not_ had the same types as the 32-bit
> machines).
> 
> However, if anybody on the list is hacking gcc, the best option really
> would be to just allow better control over gcc printf formats. I have
> wanted that in user space too at times. And it doesn't matter if it only
> happens in new versions of gcc - we can disable the warning altogether for
> old gcc's, as long as enough people have the new gcc to catch new
> offenders..
> 
> (I'd _love_ to be able to add printk modifiers for other common types in
> the kernel, like doing the NIPQUAD thing etc inside printk() instead of
> having it pollute the callers. All of which has been avoided because of
> the hardcoded gcc format warning..)
> 

While we're talking about printk()... is there any reason *not* to
rename it printf()?

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>