On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 13:01 +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:31:39 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-07-05 at 19:20 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > > On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > I don't think %#p is valid so it
> > > > shouldn't have been set by
On Mon, 7 Jul 2014, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > > I don't think %#p is valid so it
> > > > shouldn't have been set by #.
> > >
> > > Huh? As recently as last Wednesday you pointed me at the specific
> > > commit
> > > from Grant that made it valid (GCC format complaints aside).
> >
> > Those
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:31:39 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-07-05 at 19:20 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > I don't think %#p is valid so it
> > > shouldn't have been set by #.
> >
> > Huh? As recently as last Wednesday you pointed me
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:31:39 -0700, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
On Sat, 2014-07-05 at 19:20 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
I don't think %#p is valid so it
shouldn't have been set by #.
Huh? As recently as last Wednesday you pointed
On Mon, 7 Jul 2014, Grant Likely wrote:
I don't think %#p is valid so it
shouldn't have been set by #.
Huh? As recently as last Wednesday you pointed me at the specific
commit
from Grant that made it valid (GCC format complaints aside).
Those gcc complaints are
On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 13:01 +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:31:39 -0700, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
On Sat, 2014-07-05 at 19:20 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
I don't think %#p is valid so it
shouldn't have been set
On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > I don't think %#p is valid so it
> > > shouldn't have been set by #.
> >
> > Huh? As recently as last Wednesday you pointed me at the specific commit
> > from Grant that made it valid (GCC format complaints aside).
>
> Those gcc complaints are
On Sat, 2014-07-05 at 19:20 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> > I don't think %#p is valid so it
> > shouldn't have been set by #.
>
> Huh? As recently as last Wednesday you pointed me at the specific commit
> from Grant that made it valid (GCC format
On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > I think it's a mistake and I agree.
> > >
> > > I submitted a patch to remove the prefix from %pad.
> > >
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/21/333
> >
> > Great! Your proposal looks good to me in principle, however you need to
> > factor in
On Sat, 2014-07-05 at 18:39 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > > One question though, does either of you or anybody else know why we're
> > > inconsistent about this 0x prefixing of virtual addresses vs physical
> > > addresses? Specifically %p vs
On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> > One question though, does either of you or anybody else know why we're
> > inconsistent about this 0x prefixing of virtual addresses vs physical
> > addresses? Specifically %p vs e.g. %pad.
>
> I think it's a mistake and I agree.
>
> I submitted a
On Sat, 2014-07-05 at 15:56 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> One question though, does either of you or anybody else know why we're
> inconsistent about this 0x prefixing of virtual addresses vs physical
> addresses? Specifically %p vs e.g. %pad.
I think it's a mistake and I agree.
I
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > The kernel vsprintf implementation doesn't prefix
> > > > > pointers with 0x, so you can use 0x%p if you really
> > > > > want that with a leading prefix, but you don't have
> > > > > to use it.
> > > >
> > > > It does, when the `#' format
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
The kernel vsprintf implementation doesn't prefix
pointers with 0x, so you can use 0x%p if you really
want that with a leading prefix, but you don't have
to use it.
It does, when the `#' format modifier is used (go try
On Sat, 2014-07-05 at 15:56 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
One question though, does either of you or anybody else know why we're
inconsistent about this 0x prefixing of virtual addresses vs physical
addresses? Specifically %p vs e.g. %pad.
I think it's a mistake and I agree.
I submitted
On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
One question though, does either of you or anybody else know why we're
inconsistent about this 0x prefixing of virtual addresses vs physical
addresses? Specifically %p vs e.g. %pad.
I think it's a mistake and I agree.
I submitted a patch to
On Sat, 2014-07-05 at 18:39 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
One question though, does either of you or anybody else know why we're
inconsistent about this 0x prefixing of virtual addresses vs physical
addresses? Specifically %p vs e.g. %pad.
On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
I think it's a mistake and I agree.
I submitted a patch to remove the prefix from %pad.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/21/333
Great! Your proposal looks good to me in principle, however you need to
factor in SPECIAL having been set
On Sat, 2014-07-05 at 19:20 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
I don't think %#p is valid so it
shouldn't have been set by #.
Huh? As recently as last Wednesday you pointed me at the specific commit
from Grant that made it valid (GCC format
On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
I don't think %#p is valid so it
shouldn't have been set by #.
Huh? As recently as last Wednesday you pointed me at the specific commit
from Grant that made it valid (GCC format complaints aside).
Those gcc complaints are precisely the
20 matches
Mail list logo
