Hello, The patch I sent a few months ago still applies cleanly on top of 4.12-rc1. What should I do in order to get it merged in 4.13?
In case you no longer have my initial email, the patch has been archived in https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9604651/ . Thanks, Nicolas On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Nicolas Iooss <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Nicolas Iooss > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> * Nicolas Iooss <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Adding such an attribute helps to detect errors in the format string at >>>> build time. After doing this, the compiler complains about some issues: >>>> >>>> arch/x86/tools/relocs.c:460:5: error: format specifies type 'int' >>>> but the argument has type 'Elf64_Xword' (aka 'unsigned long') >>>> [-Werror,-Wformat] >>>> sec->shdr.sh_size); >>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> arch/x86/tools/relocs.c:464:5: error: format specifies type 'int' >>>> but the argument has type 'Elf64_Off' (aka 'unsigned long') >>>> [-Werror,-Wformat] >>>> sec->shdr.sh_offset, strerror(errno)); >>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> >>>> When relocs.c is included by relocs_32.c, sec->shdr.sh_size and >>>> sec->shdr.sh_offset are 32-bit unsigned integers. When the file is >>>> included by relocs_64.c, these expressions are 64-bit unsigned integers. >>>> >>>> Add casts to unsigned long long, which length is always 64-bit, and use >>>> %llu to format sec->shdr.sh_size and sec->shdr.sh_offset in relocs.c. >>>> >>>> While at it, constify the format attribute of die(). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Iooss <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> arch/x86/tools/relocs.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++-------------- >>>> arch/x86/tools/relocs.h | 3 ++- >>>> arch/x86/tools/relocs_common.c | 2 +- >>>> 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c b/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c >>>> index 73eb7fd4aec4..3cc02065c677 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c >>>> @@ -397,8 +397,8 @@ static void read_shdrs(FILE *fp) >>>> ehdr.e_shnum); >>>> } >>>> if (fseek(fp, ehdr.e_shoff, SEEK_SET) < 0) { >>>> - die("Seek to %d failed: %s\n", >>>> - ehdr.e_shoff, strerror(errno)); >>>> + die("Seek to %llu failed: %s\n", >>>> + (unsigned long long)ehdr.e_shoff, strerror(errno)); >>> >>> Isn't "(u64)" shorter to write? >> >> u64 does not seem to be defined in this file right now. Adding >> "#include <linux/types.h>" defines u64 and __u64 in the following way: >> - "typedef uint64_t u64;" from tools/include/linux/types.h >> - "typedef unsigned long long __u64;" from >> /usr/include/asm-generic/int-ll64.h >> >> uint64_t is unsigned long on x86-64 and gcc complains when using %llu >> on such a type, so using a cast to u64 forces using PRIu64 too. >> >> Nevertheless "(__u64)" is shorter than "(unsigned long long)" and >> seems to work fine in my quick tests because it is always unsigned >> long long (on both x86-32 and x86-64). Would you prefer to use this >> cast? > > Hello, > After the question I had on the 4th revision of this patch, I have not > received any reply or comment for three weeks. What should I do in > order to get this merged? > > Thanks, > Nicolas
