Re: [PATCH 1/5] Revert "kmemtrace: fix printk format warnings"

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu wrote:

> This reverts commit 79cf3d5e207243eecb1c4331c569e17700fa08fa.
> 
> The reverted commit, while it fixed printk format warnings, it resulted in
> marker-probe format mismatches. Another approach should be used to fix
> these warnings.

Such as what?

Can marker probes be fixed instead?

After seeing & fixing lots of various warnings in the last few days,
I'm thinking that people don't look at/heed warnings nowadays.  Sad.
Maybe there are just so many that they are lost in the noise.


> ---
>  include/linux/kmemtrace.h |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/kmemtrace.h b/include/linux/kmemtrace.h
> index a865064..2c33201 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kmemtrace.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kmemtrace.h
> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ static inline void kmemtrace_mark_alloc_node(enum kmemtrace_type_id type_id,
>  					     int node)
>  {
>  	trace_mark(kmemtrace_alloc, "type_id %d call_site %lu ptr %lu "
> -		   "bytes_req %zu bytes_alloc %zu gfp_flags %lu node %d",
> +		   "bytes_req %lu bytes_alloc %lu gfp_flags %lu node %d",
>  		   type_id, call_site, (unsigned long) ptr,
>  		   bytes_req, bytes_alloc, (unsigned long) gfp_flags, node);
>  }
> 

-- 
~Randy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/