[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Large block device patch, part 1 of 9

    > > 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()?

    I believe printf() is good idea. I put printk() into userland programs
    too many times now, and used printf() too many times from kernel...


    Worst form of spam? Adding advertisment signatures ala
    What goes next? Inserting advertisment *into* email?
    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:0.028 / U:160.980 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site