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

[Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:32:14PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > > 
> > > Such as what?
> > > 
> > > Can marker probes be fixed instead?
> 
> Did you answer this?

Yes, they can be fixed, but the probe functions will likely show
warnings unless the way we parse vargs is fixed as well.

> > > 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.
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Check the next patch in the series, it provides the alternate fix.
> 
> Yep, I saw that later.
> 
> > I favor this approach more because it involves fewer changes and we
> > don't have to use things like "%zu" (which make data type size less
> > apparent).
> 
> %zu is regular C language.  I.e., I don't get the data type not being
> apparent issue...

Yes, I know. But I feel like using unsigned long is consistent with the
way we handle the call site pointers and gfp_t. Pointers are cast to
unsigned long (in _RET_IP_) and size_t's actual range and size is more
apparent if it's cast to unsigned long as well (since allocation sizes
should scale the same as pointers do, and we know sizeof(unsigned long)
== sizeof(void *) on GCC).

> Maybe kmemtrace should just make everything be long long... :(

I was merely trying to sort this out faster and more consistent.

> -- 
> ~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/