Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] x86/hyper-v: stash the max number of virtual/logical processor

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:24:27 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 May 2017 20:43:58 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> > > Max virtual processor will be needed for 'extended' hypercalls supporting
> > > more than 64 vCPUs. While on it, unify on 'Hyper-V' in mshyperv.c as we
> > > currently have a mix, report acquired misc features as well.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: Simon Xiao <sixiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: Srikanth Myakam <v-srm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>    
> >   
> > > +       u32 max_vp_index;
> > > +       u32 max_lp_index;    
> >   
> > > +       pr_info("Hyper-V: max %d virtual processors, %d logical processors\n",
> > > +               ms_hyperv.max_vp_index, ms_hyperv.max_lp_index);    
> > 
> > And surprisingly no-one from the above list did not get a warning?!  

Gcc 6.3 does not warn when %d is used on unsigned values.


> Begs to question how many other warnings are they ignoring?
None.