Re: New bcache compiler warning (was: Re: bcache: Minor fixes from kbuild robot)
From: Kent Overstreet <hidden>
Date: 2014-02-17 21:46:01
Also in:
lkml
Subsystem:
bcache (block layer cache), the rest · Maintainers:
Coly Li, Kent Overstreet, Linus Torvalds
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:11:51PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Randy Dunlap [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On 02/17/2014 01:00 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:quoted
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Linux Kernel Mailing List [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
bcache: Minor fixes from kbuild robotquoted
diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/bset.c b/drivers/md/bcache/bset.c index 4f6b594..3f74b4b 100644 --- a/drivers/md/bcache/bset.c +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/bset.c@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ void bch_dump_bset(struct btree_keys *b, struct bset *i, unsigned set) for (k = i->start; k < bset_bkey_last(i); k = next) { next = bkey_next(k); - printk(KERN_ERR "block %u key %zi/%u: ", set, + printk(KERN_ERR "block %u key %li/%u: ", set, (uint64_t *) k - i->d, i->keys); if (b->ops->key_dump)On 32-bit (m68k): drivers/md/bcache/bset.c: In function ‘bch_dump_bset’: drivers/md/bcache/bset.c:27: warning: format ‘%li’ expects type ‘long int’, but argument 3 has type ‘int’ What are you trying to print here? It looks a bit strange to me. Technically, the difference between two pointers is of type ptrdiff_. The kernel had typedef __kernel_ptrdiff_t ptrdiff_t; and #if __BITS_PER_LONG != 64 typedef unsigned int __kernel_size_t; typedef int __kernel_ssize_t; typedef int __kernel_ptrdiff_t; #else typedef __kernel_ulong_t __kernel_size_t; typedef __kernel_long_t __kernel_ssize_t; typedef __kernel_long_t __kernel_ptrdiff_t; #endif So I'd expect "%zi" to be the right way, and a quick test compile on 32-bit (m68k) and 64-bit (amd64) comfirms that. What was wrong with it?The kernel supports 't' (%t) for ptrdiff_t (same as glibc), so %ti should work (or %tu).Yes, that compiles without warnings, too. And after more decyphering, "(uint64_t *) k - i->d" seems to be positive, so "%tu" should be OK.
*swears* Actually, I'm just going to cast this to unsigned (that's definitely
safe here):
commit 70bc49d421c793f73a772ae1f50622a39c6136d9
Author: Kent Overstreet [off-list ref]
Date: Mon Feb 17 13:44:06 2014 -0800
bcache: Fix another compiler warning on m68k
Use a bigger hammer this time
Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet [off-list ref]
diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/bset.c b/drivers/md/bcache/bset.c
index 3f74b4b074..5454164153 100644
--- a/drivers/md/bcache/bset.c
+++ b/drivers/md/bcache/bset.c@@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ void bch_dump_bset(struct btree_keys *b, struct bset *i, unsigned set) for (k = i->start; k < bset_bkey_last(i); k = next) { next = bkey_next(k); - printk(KERN_ERR "block %u key %li/%u: ", set, - (uint64_t *) k - i->d, i->keys); + printk(KERN_ERR "block %u key %u/%u: ", set, + (unsigned) ((u64 *) k - i->d), i->keys); if (b->ops->key_dump) b->ops->key_dump(b, k);