[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Large block device patch, part 1 of 9
Followup to:  <>
By author: Linus Torvalds <>
In newsgroup:
> The printk warnings should be easy to fix once everybody uses the same
> types - I think we right now have workarounds exactly for 64-bit machines
> where w check BITS_PER_LONG and use different formats for them (exactly
> because they historically have _not_ had the same types as the 32-bit
> machines).
> However, if anybody on the list is hacking gcc, the best option really
> would be to just allow better control over gcc printf formats. I have
> wanted that in user space too at times. And it doesn't matter if it only
> happens in new versions of gcc - we can disable the warning altogether for
> old gcc's, as long as enough people have the new gcc to catch new
> offenders..
> (I'd _love_ to be able to add printk modifiers for other common types in
> the kernel, like doing the NIPQUAD thing etc inside printk() instead of
> having it pollute the callers. All of which has been avoided because of
> the hardcoded gcc format warning..)

While we're talking about printk()... is there any reason *not* to
rename it printf()?

<> at work, <> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." <>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:31    [W:0.061 / U:0.808 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site