From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39199 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OOSw7-0002Md-Jf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:00:05 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1OOSw6-0002I0-Bj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:00:03 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5749)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1OOSw6-0002GW-5E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:00:02 -0400
Message-ID: <4C174F11.1000203@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:59:45 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: fix a warning and possible truncation
References: <AANLkTilSuir7Sd-ee_HCvsViF9xrHgcohL0cVV1gZLak@mail.gmail.com>
	<FEB87F7A-9ED0-4397-9055-5ECD19CF783B@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <FEB87F7A-9ED0-4397-9055-5ECD19CF783B@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Am 15.06.2010 11:52, schrieb Alexander Graf:
> 
> Am 14.06.2010 um 20:55 schrieb Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>:
> 
>> 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>
>> ---
>> Alternatively 'ULL' prefix could be appended to BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE
>> definition but that may have other side effects.
> 
> ... Which are probably wanted. If there are more truncations, we want  
> to catch them early, no?

Actually, it's there:

#define BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE   (1ULL << BDRV_SECTOR_BITS)

That compiler warning doesn't make any sense to me.

Kevin