Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1471090 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-27 05:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-08-27 18:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 5 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH] bridge: Fix format string for %ul Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru> - 2016-08-27 05:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] bridge: Fix format string for %ul Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> - 2016-08-27 17:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] bridge: Fix format string for %ul Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru> - 2016-08-27 18:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] bridge: Fix format string for %ul Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> - 2016-08-27 18:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] bridge: Fix format string for %ul Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru> - 2016-08-27 18:40 +0200
| From | Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 05:20 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH] bridge: Fix format string for %ul |
| Message-ID | <saCk2-7AH-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
%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 <green@linuxhacker.ru> --- net/bridge/br_stp_bpdu.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/net/bridge/br_stp_bpdu.c b/net/bridge/br_stp_bpdu.c index 5881fbc..15c4a9c 100644 --- a/net/bridge/br_stp_bpdu.c +++ b/net/bridge/br_stp_bpdu.c @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ void br_stp_rcv(const struct stp_proto *proto, struct sk_buff *skb, if (net_ratelimit()) br_notice(p->br, "port %u config from %pM" - " (message_age %ul > max_age %ul)\n", + " (message_age %u > max_age %u)\n", p->port_no, eth_hdr(skb)->h_source, bpdu.message_age, bpdu.max_age); -- 2.7.4
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 17:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <saNyO-6aa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1471090 |
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 <green@linuxhacker.ru>
[...]
MBR, Sergei
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 18:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <saObv-6nq-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1471199 |
On Aug 27, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > 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"… They are signed in the struct definition, but in reality they designate time, so could not be negative, I imagine? > >> ints, so just dropping the l altogether. >> >> Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru> > [...] > > MBR, Sergei
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 18:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <saOuS-6JU-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1471212 |
Hello.
On 8/27/2016 6:58 PM, 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"…
>
> 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?
>>> ints, so just dropping the l altogether.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>
>> [...]
MBR, Sergei
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <saOOd-6RJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1471218 |
On Aug 27, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On 8/27/2016 6:58 PM, 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"…
>>
>> 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?
>
>>>> ints, so just dropping the l altogether.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>
>>> [...]
>
> MBR, Sergei
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web