| Message ID | 1424438782-31545-1-git-send-email-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Delegated to: | Michael Ellerman |
| Headers | show |
Excerpts from Rasmus Villemoes's message of 2015-02-21 00:26:22 +1100: > C99 says that a precision given as simply '.' with no following digits > or * should be interpreted as 0. The kernel's printf implementation, > however, treats this case as if the precision was omitted. C99 also > says that if both the precision and value are 0, no digits should be > printed. Even if the kernel followed C99 to the letter, I don't think > that would be particularly useful in these cases, so just remove the > precision specifiers. Nice catch Rasmus, but I think a better patch would be one that adds the missing precision (%.16llx). Cheers, -Ian
On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 14:40 +1100, Ian Munsie wrote: > Excerpts from Rasmus Villemoes's message of 2015-02-21 00:26:22 +1100: > > C99 says that a precision given as simply '.' with no following digits > > or * should be interpreted as 0. The kernel's printf implementation, > > however, treats this case as if the precision was omitted. C99 also > > says that if both the precision and value are 0, no digits should be > > printed. Even if the kernel followed C99 to the letter, I don't think > > that would be particularly useful in these cases, so just remove the > > precision specifiers. > > Nice catch Rasmus, but I think a better patch would be one that adds the > missing precision (%.16llx). The kernel much more commonly uses %016llx $ git grep "%016llx" | grep -v staging | wc -l 792 $ git grep "%\.16llx" | grep -v staging | wc -l 36
diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c index c8929c526691..46635a8dbeae 100644 --- a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c +++ b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info) if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_An_PE) return handle_psl_slice_error(ctx, dsisr, irq_info->errstat); if (dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_An_AE) { - pr_devel("CXL interrupt: AFU Error %.llx\n", irq_info->afu_err); + pr_devel("CXL interrupt: AFU Error %llx\n", irq_info->afu_err); if (ctx->pending_afu_err) { /* @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info) * probably best that we log them somewhere: */ dev_err_ratelimited(&ctx->afu->dev, "CXL AFU Error " - "undelivered to pe %i: %.llx\n", + "undelivered to pe %i: %llx\n", ctx->pe, irq_info->afu_err); } else { spin_lock(&ctx->lock);
C99 says that a precision given as simply '.' with no following digits or * should be interpreted as 0. The kernel's printf implementation, however, treats this case as if the precision was omitted. C99 also says that if both the precision and value are 0, no digits should be printed. Even if the kernel followed C99 to the letter, I don't think that would be particularly useful in these cases, so just remove the precision specifiers. Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> --- drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)