[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:0.025 / U:396.164 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site