Re: [PATCH net-next 8/9] net: hns3: cleanup some print format warning

[tanhuazhong]

On 2019/10/31 19:53, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-10-31 at 19:23 +0800, Huazhong Tan wrote:
> > From: Guojia Liao <liaoguojia@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Using '%d' for printing type unsigned int or '%u' for
> > type int would cause static tools to give false warnings,
> > so this patch cleanups this warning by using the suitable
> > format specifier of the type of variable.
> >
> > BTW, modifies the type of some variables and macro to
> > synchronize with their usage.
>
> What tool is this?

Sorry, it is my mistake, as confirmed, this patch is
advised by internal code review.

> I think this static warning is excessive as macro
> defines with a small positive number are common

yes, it seems ok.
The reason we do this modification is that
printing resp_data_len with '%u' and printing
HCLGE_MBX_MAX_RESP_DATA_SIZE with '%d' seems a little odd.

 	if (resp_data_len > HCLGE_MBX_MAX_RESP_DATA_SIZE) {
 		dev_err(&hdev->pdev->dev,
-			"PF fail to gen resp to VF len %d exceeds max len %d\n",
+			"PF fail to gen resp to VF len %u exceeds max len %u\n",
 			resp_data_len,
 			HCLGE_MBX_MAX_RESP_DATA_SIZE);

Thanks for your suggestion.

> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hclge_mbx.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hclge_mbx.h
> []
> > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ enum hclge_mbx_vlan_cfg_subcode {
> >   };
> >   
> >   #define HCLGE_MBX_MAX_MSG_SIZE	16
> > -#define HCLGE_MBX_MAX_RESP_DATA_SIZE	8
> > +#define HCLGE_MBX_MAX_RESP_DATA_SIZE	8U
> >   #define HCLGE_MBX_RING_MAP_BASIC_MSG_NUM	3
> >   #define HCLGE_MBX_RING_NODE_VARIABLE_NUM	3
>
> like this one
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3_debugfs.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3_debugfs.c
> []
> > @@ -57,68 +57,68 @@ static int hns3_dbg_queue_info(struct hnae3_handle *h,
> >   					   HNS3_RING_RX_RING_BASEADDR_H_REG);
> >   		base_add_l = readl_relaxed(ring->tqp->io_base +
> >   					   HNS3_RING_RX_RING_BASEADDR_L_REG);
> > -		dev_info(&h->pdev->dev, "RX(%d) BASE ADD: 0x%08x%08x\n", i,
> > +		dev_info(&h->pdev->dev, "RX(%u) BASE ADD: 0x%08x%08x\n", i,
>
> so using %d is correct enough.
>
>
>
> .