Re: [Bridge] [PATCH] bridge: Fix format string for %ul

2017-10-03 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 23:10:28 -0400 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 > ints, so just dropping the l altogether. >

Re: [Bridge] [PATCH] bridge: Fix format string for %ul

2016-08-29 Thread Oleg Drokin
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

Re: [Bridge] [PATCH] bridge: Fix format string for %ul

2016-08-29 Thread Oleg Drokin
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 > >

[Bridge] [PATCH] bridge: Fix format string for %ul

2016-08-29 Thread Oleg Drokin
%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 --- net/bridge/br_stp_bpdu.c | 2 +-

Re: [Bridge] [PATCH] bridge: Fix format string for %ul

2016-08-27 Thread Sergei Shtylyov
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