Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1651947 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-27 19:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-06-05 17:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] x86/hyper-v: stash the max number of virtual/logical processor Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 19:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] x86/hyper-v: stash the max number of virtual/logical processor Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-06-05 17:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] x86/hyper-v: stash the max number of virtual/logical processor Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> - 2017-06-05 17:40 +0200
| From | Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-27 19:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] x86/hyper-v: stash the max number of virtual/logical processor |
| Message-ID | <tLO0G-77h-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
> Max virtual processor will be needed for 'extended' hypercalls supporting
> more than 64 vCPUs. While on it, unify on 'Hyper-V' in mshyperv.c as we
> currently have a mix, report acquired misc features as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
> Acked-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
> Tested-by: Simon Xiao <sixiao@microsoft.com>
> Tested-by: Srikanth Myakam <v-srm@microsoft.com>
> + u32 max_vp_index;
> + u32 max_lp_index;
> + pr_info("Hyper-V: max %d virtual processors, %d logical processors\n",
> + ms_hyperv.max_vp_index, ms_hyperv.max_lp_index);
And surprisingly no-one from the above list did not get a warning?!
%u, please.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 17:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tP278-4D2-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1651947 |
On Sat, 27 May 2017 20:43:58 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Max virtual processor will be needed for 'extended' hypercalls supporting
> > more than 64 vCPUs. While on it, unify on 'Hyper-V' in mshyperv.c as we
> > currently have a mix, report acquired misc features as well.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
> > Acked-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
> > Tested-by: Simon Xiao <sixiao@microsoft.com>
> > Tested-by: Srikanth Myakam <v-srm@microsoft.com>
>
> > + u32 max_vp_index;
> > + u32 max_lp_index;
>
> > + pr_info("Hyper-V: max %d virtual processors, %d logical processors\n",
> > + ms_hyperv.max_vp_index, ms_hyperv.max_lp_index);
>
> And surprisingly no-one from the above list did not get a warning?!
Begs to question how many other warnings are they ignoring?
-- Steve
>
> %u, please.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tP2gO-4G7-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1657668 |
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:24:27 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 2017 20:43:58 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Max virtual processor will be needed for 'extended' hypercalls supporting
> > > more than 64 vCPUs. While on it, unify on 'Hyper-V' in mshyperv.c as we
> > > currently have a mix, report acquired misc features as well.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
> > > Acked-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
> > > Tested-by: Simon Xiao <sixiao@microsoft.com>
> > > Tested-by: Srikanth Myakam <v-srm@microsoft.com>
> >
> > > + u32 max_vp_index;
> > > + u32 max_lp_index;
> >
> > > + pr_info("Hyper-V: max %d virtual processors, %d logical processors\n",
> > > + ms_hyperv.max_vp_index, ms_hyperv.max_lp_index);
> >
> > And surprisingly no-one from the above list did not get a warning?!
Gcc 6.3 does not warn when %d is used on unsigned values.
> Begs to question how many other warnings are they ignoring?
None.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web