From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51686 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OOQwe-0005a1-48
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:52:29 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1OOQwc-0005nm-OA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:52:27 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53491)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1OOQwc-0005nT-C9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:52:26 -0400
Message-ID: <4C173128.2010603@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:52:08 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <AANLkTilSuir7Sd-ee_HCvsViF9xrHgcohL0cVV1gZLak@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilSuir7Sd-ee_HCvsViF9xrHgcohL0cVV1gZLak@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] block: fix a warning and possible
	truncation
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: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Am 14.06.2010 20:55, schrieb Blue Swirl:
> Fix a warning from OpenBSD gcc (3.3.5 (propolice)):
> /src/qemu/block.c: In function `bdrv_info_stats_bs':
> /src/qemu/block.c:1548: warning: long long int format, long unsigned
> int arg (arg 6)
> 
> There may be also truncation effects.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>

Thanks, applied to the block branch.

But why is this even needed? wr_highest_sector is already uint64_t, so
wouldn't you expect the result to be uint64_t, too?

Kevin