%ul would print an unsigned value and a letter l,
likely it was %lu that was meant to print the long int,
but in reality the values printed there are just regular signed
ints, so just dropping the l altogether.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <redacted>
---
net/bridge/br_stp_bpdu.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: Sergei Shtylyov <hidden> Date: 2016-08-27 15:13:08
Hello.
On 8/27/2016 6:10 AM, Oleg Drokin wrote:
%ul would print an unsigned value and a letter l,
likely it was %lu that was meant to print the long int,
but in reality the values printed there are just regular signed
Signed? Then you need probably "%d" or "%i"...
ints, so just dropping the l altogether.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <redacted>
On Aug 27, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Hello.
On 8/27/2016 6:10 AM, Oleg Drokin wrote:
quoted
%ul would print an unsigned value and a letter l,
likely it was %lu that was meant to print the long int,
but in reality the values printed there are just regular signed
Signed? Then you need probably "%d" or "%i"…
They are signed in the struct definition, but in reality they
designate time, so could not be negative, I imagine?
quoted
ints, so just dropping the l altogether.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <redacted>
From: Sergei Shtylyov <hidden> Date: 2016-08-27 16:18:21
Hello.
On 8/27/2016 6:58 PM, Oleg Drokin wrote:
quoted
quoted
%ul would print an unsigned value and a letter l,
likely it was %lu that was meant to print the long int,
but in reality the values printed there are just regular signed
Signed? Then you need probably "%d" or "%i"…
They are signed in the struct definition, but in reality they
designate time, so could not be negative, I imagine?
That doesn't matter. If the type is signed, it should be printed as signed.
Doesn't gcc complain about the format specifiers not matching the values passed?
quoted
quoted
ints, so just dropping the l altogether.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <redacted>
On Aug 27, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Hello.
On 8/27/2016 6:58 PM, Oleg Drokin wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
%ul would print an unsigned value and a letter l,
likely it was %lu that was meant to print the long int,
but in reality the values printed there are just regular signed
Signed? Then you need probably "%d" or "%i"…
They are signed in the struct definition, but in reality they
designate time, so could not be negative, I imagine?
That doesn't matter. If the type is signed, it should be printed as signed.
Doesn't gcc complain about the format specifiers not matching the values passed?
only if the size differs.
I don't care either way.
I can change the struct to unsigned too, but if we want super correctness,
the problem lies deeper.
E.g. if we look how those times are derived, the age comes as:
static inline int br_get_ticks(const unsigned char *src)
{
unsigned long ticks = get_unaligned_be16(src);
return DIV_ROUND_UP(ticks * HZ, STP_HZ);
}
So we divide unsigned value by positive value and get a signed result ;)
there's a struct net_bridge_port with similar members in this are that are
unsigned long, so I guess we should convert to unsigned long in the
struct br_config_bpdu, do you want a patch for that separately or as part of this one?
quoted
quoted
quoted
ints, so just dropping the l altogether.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <redacted>
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> Date: 2017-10-03 20:43:20
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 23:10:28 -0400
Oleg Drokin [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk
%ul would print an unsigned value and a letter l,
likely it was %lu that was meant to print the long int,
but in reality the values printed there are just regular signed
ints, so just dropping the l altogether.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <redacted>
---
net/bridge/br_stp_bpdu.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)