From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=32914 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OHant-0006bt-IG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2010 06:59:10 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1OHans-0006qm-Ju
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2010 06:59:09 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23147)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1OHans-0006qb-Bx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2010 06:59:08 -0400
Message-ID: <4BFE5078.1030805@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 12:59:04 +0200
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1274955749-20689-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
	<20100527104414.GA7250@redhat.com> <4BFE4FB5.5000300@redhat.com>
	<20100527105355.GA7313@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100527105355.GA7313@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] vhost_net.c: v2 Fix build failure
	introduced by	0bfcd599e3f5c5679cc7d0165a0a1822e2f60de2
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: blauwirbel@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 05/27/10 12:53, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:55:49PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> On 05/27/10 12:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> I think this part of 0bfcd599e3f5c5679cc7d0165a0a1822e2f60de2
>>> should just be reverted. We have unsigned long, it should be printed
>>> woith %ll. Casting to uint64_t just so we can print with PRIu64 seems silly.
>>
>> That is an option too. Problem is just that unsigned long is 32 bit on
>> 32 bit systems and Windows (even for 64 bit) so if we need more flags we
>> need to be careful with it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jes
> 
> I don't understand, sorry.
> This field is unsigned long long, not unsigned long.
> %ll will print unsigned long long
> for any standard printf, whatever its length.

Ah ok, if the field is long long, then your patch should be just fine. I
hadn't checked that was the case.

Cheers,
Jes