On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 20:03:51 -0600 Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[PATCH] Make u64 long long on all architectures
It is currently awkward to print a u64 type. Some architectures use
unsigned long while others use unsigned long long. Since unsigned long
long is 64-bit for all
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 03:05 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 20:03:51 -0600 Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[PATCH] Make u64 long long on all architectures
It is currently awkward to print a u64 type. Some architectures use
unsigned long while others use unsigned
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:36:35 +1000 Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 03:05 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 20:03:51 -0600 Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[PATCH] Make u64 long long on all architectures
It is currently awkward to
This is (IMO) a desirable change and will prevent a heck of a lot of
goofing around, and will permit a lot of prior goofing around to
be removed.
But I bet there are lots of instalces of printk(%l, some_u64) down in
arch code where the type of u64 _is_ known which will now spew warnings.
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 20:36 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
concordia powerpc(master) $ find arch/powerpc/ ! -name '*32.*' | xargs
grep %l | grep -v %ll | wc -l
635
Someone's gonna get a lot of git points for fixing all those. Might
keep
the speeling fix crowd busy for a
But a bunch of
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 02:36:21PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
It's also true for parisc, fwiw. Added a cc to them.
I posted a patch months ago for kallsyms on parisc, but it looks like
nobody ever responded or cared. Nice.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yeah, agreed, combined it's not an x86 topic anymore.
[ There's some lkml trouble so i've missed the earlier patch. I'm not
sure the email problem is on my side, see how incomplete the
discussion is on lkml.org as well:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 03:02:59 +0300 Pekka Enberg wrote:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 08:41:39PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
Single letters are bad because it hurts readability and limits the
usefulness of the extension./MHO
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 16:25 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I'll give it a try using probe_kernel_address() instead on monday.
Here's the updated patch which uses probe_kernel_address() instead (and
moves the whole #ifdef mess out of the
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 13:26 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:14:36 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 16:25 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I'll give it a try using
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 13:26 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Did a few tests and it seems to work. I'll stick a patch converting
powerpc to use %pS for oops display in -next.
After you post it to linuxppc-dev and get review comments, of
course ...
I though I did that already, looks like I
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:28:18 +1000 Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wasn't that already merged via the trivial scheduler fixes tree or
something? ;)
Not yet.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
pgp7ahdw8jTpz.pgp
On Saturday 2008-07-05 00:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
We don't know how much interest there would be in churning NIPQUAD from
the net guys. Interestingly, there's also %C (wint_t) which is a
32-bit quantity. So we could just go and say %C prints an ipv4
address and be done with it. But there's
On Saturday 05 July 2008 00:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
We also jump through hoops to print things like sector_t and
resource_size_t. They always need to be cast to `unsiged long long',
which generates additional stack space and text in some setups.
The thing is that GCC checks types.
On Saturday 2008-07-05 14:52, Vegard Nossum wrote:
On Saturday 2008-07-05 00:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
We don't know how much interest there would be in churning NIPQUAD from
the net guys. Interestingly, there's also %C (wint_t) which is a
32-bit quantity. So we could just go and say %C prints
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 2008-07-05 00:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
We don't know how much interest there would be in churning NIPQUAD from
the net guys. Interestingly, there's also %C (wint_t) which is a
32-bit quantity. So we could just
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 2008-07-05 14:52, Vegard Nossum wrote:
On Saturday 2008-07-05 00:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
We don't know how much interest there would be in churning NIPQUAD from
the net guys. Interestingly, there's also %C
On Saturday 2008-07-05 15:50, Vegard Nossum wrote:
I think the most elegant solution would be a macro similar to the
initcall macros, that adds the custom extensions to a table which is
defined by a special linker section. This allows complete
decentralization, but I don't think it's possible to
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008, Vegard Nossum wrote:
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 2008-07-05 00:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
We don't know how much interest there would be in churning NIPQUAD from
the net guys. Interestingly, there's also %C
On Saturday 2008-07-05 19:56, Linus Torvalds wrote:
How about %p{feature}?
No.
I _expressly_ chose '%p[alphanumeric]*' because it's basically
totally insane to have that in a *real* printk() string: the end result
would be totally unreadable.
So, and what do you do when you run out of
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Linus Torvalds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008, Vegard Nossum wrote:
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about %p{feature}?
No.
I _expressly_ chose '%p[alphanumeric]*' because it's basically
totally insane
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
So, and what do you do when you run out of alphanumeric characters?
Did you actually look at my patch?
It's not a single alnum character. It's an arbitrary sequence of alnum
characters. IOW, my patch allows
%p6N
or something like that for
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 08:41:39PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
Single letters are bad because it hurts readability and limits the
usefulness of the extension./MHO
I think you need a little warning noise that goes off in your head that
means I might be overdesigning this. Linus' code is elegant
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Still all happily untested, of course. And still with no actual users
converted.
Ok, it's tested, and here's an example usage conversion.
The diffstat pretty much says it all. It _does_ change the format of the
stack trace entry a bit, but I
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Still all happily untested, of course. And still with no actual users
converted.
Ok, it's tested, and here's an example usage conversion.
The diffstat pretty much says it all. It _does_ change the format of the
stack trace
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 08:41:39PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
Single letters are bad because it hurts readability and limits the
usefulness of the extension./MHO
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you need a little warning noise that goes off in
* Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still all happily untested, of course. And still with no actual
users converted.
Ok, it's tested, and here's an example usage conversion.
The diffstat pretty much says it all. It _does_ change the format of
the stack trace entry a bit, but I
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
applied (with the commit message below) to tip/x86/debug for v2.6.27
merging, thanks Linus. Can i add your SOB too?
Sure, add my S-O-B. But I hope/assuem that you also added my earlier patch
that added the support for '%pS' too? I'm not entirely sure
* Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
applied (with the commit message below) to tip/x86/debug for v2.6.27
merging, thanks Linus. Can i add your SOB too?
Sure, add my S-O-B. But I hope/assuem that you also added my earlier
patch that added
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
so I think we could easily just say that we extend %p in various ways:
- %pS - print pointer as a symbol
and leave tons of room for future extensions for different kinds of
pointers.
So here's a totally untested example patch of this, which
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
so I think we could easily just say that we extend %p in various ways:
- %pS - print pointer as a symbol
and leave tons of room for future extensions for
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 01:02:05PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
so I think we could easily just say that we extend %p in various ways:
- %pS - print pointer as a symbol
and leave tons of room for future extensions for different kinds of
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
probe_kernel_address() should be usable here.
Right you are.
+static char *string(char *buf, char *end, char *s, int field_width, int
precision, int flags)
+{
+ int len, i;
+
+ if ((unsigned long)s PAGE_SIZE)
+ s = NULL;
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 01:27:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
so I think we could easily just say that we extend %p in various ways:
- %pS - print pointer as a symbol
and leave tons of room for
(heck, let's cc lkml - avoid having to go through all this again)
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:42:53 -0600 Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 01:27:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
so
u64 is easy to fix, and I don't know why we haven't. Just make it
unsigned long long on all architectures.
Yup. Also, one of the major user of that is to print a struct resource,
which everybody does differently, so we may even look at doing a %pR
that does the nice start..end [attr]..
Ben.
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 13:02 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
That function descriptor indirection is totally untested, and I did it
with a
pagefault_disable();
__get_user(..)
pagefault_enable();
thing because I thought it would be nice if printk() was always safe,
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I'll give it a try using probe_kernel_address() instead on monday.
Here's the updated patch which uses probe_kernel_address() instead (and
moves the whole #ifdef mess out of the code that wants it and into a
helper function - and maybe we
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 03:01:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
(heck, let's cc lkml - avoid having to go through all this again)
It would be excellent if gcc had an extension system so that you could
add new printf control chars and maybe even tell gcc how to check them.
But of course, if
39 matches
Mail list logo
