From: Davidlohr Bueso
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:09:03 -0700
> Use the already defined macro to pass the function return address.
>
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso
I've decided that we should just leave this alone for now, because
frankly the choice is arbitrary.
--
To unsubscribe from this
Hello.
On 05/31/2013 08:54 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
Don't use a standalone gcc compiled program to
determine what the kernel outputs.
[]
The kernel output is;
printk("0x%lx\n", 0x100ul)0x100
printk("%p\n", (void *)0x100ul) 0100
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 18:33 +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 31-05-2013 9:20, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Don't use a standalone gcc compiled program to
> > determine what the kernel outputs.
[]
> > The kernel output is;
>
> > printk("0x%lx\n", 0x100ul) 0x100
> > printk("%p\n",
Hello.
On 31-05-2013 9:20, Joe Perches wrote:
Why not "text:%#lx" as already used in this string? It's
equivalent to "0x%lx".
Well, I don't know the reasoning in this case, but I'd like to note that
those are not strictly equivalent. Personally I find the formatting of 0
annoying
Joe Perches writes:
> On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 18:11 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 13:08 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> > Sergei Shtylyov writes:
>> >
>> > > Why not "text:%#lx" as already used in this string? It's
>> > > equivalent to "0x%lx".
>> >
>> > Well, I don't
Joe Perches j...@perches.com writes:
On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 18:11 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 13:08 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Sergei Shtylyov sergei.shtyl...@cogentembedded.com writes:
Why not text:%#lx as already used in this string? It's
equivalent to
Hello.
On 31-05-2013 9:20, Joe Perches wrote:
Why not text:%#lx as already used in this string? It's
equivalent to 0x%lx.
Well, I don't know the reasoning in this case, but I'd like to note that
those are not strictly equivalent. Personally I find the formatting of 0
annoying enough
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 18:33 +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
On 31-05-2013 9:20, Joe Perches wrote:
Don't use a standalone gcc compiled program to
determine what the kernel outputs.
[]
The kernel output is;
printk(0x%lx\n, 0x100ul) 0x100
printk(%p\n, (void *)0x100ul)
Hello.
On 05/31/2013 08:54 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
Don't use a standalone gcc compiled program to
determine what the kernel outputs.
[]
The kernel output is;
printk(0x%lx\n, 0x100ul)0x100
printk(%p\n, (void *)0x100ul) 0100
printk(%#p\n,
From: Davidlohr Bueso davidlohr.bu...@hp.com
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:09:03 -0700
Use the already defined macro to pass the function return address.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso davidlohr.bu...@hp.com
I've decided that we should just leave this alone for now, because
frankly the choice is
On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 18:11 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 13:08 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > Sergei Shtylyov writes:
> >
> > > Why not "text:%#lx" as already used in this string? It's
> > > equivalent to "0x%lx".
> >
> > Well, I don't know the reasoning in this case,
On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 13:08 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Sergei Shtylyov writes:
>
> > Why not "text:%#lx" as already used in this string? It's
> > equivalent to "0x%lx".
>
> Well, I don't know the reasoning in this case, but I'd like to note that
> those are not strictly equivalent.
Sergei Shtylyov writes:
> Why not "text:%#lx" as already used in this string? It's
> equivalent to "0x%lx".
Well, I don't know the reasoning in this case, but I'd like to note that
those are not strictly equivalent. Personally I find the formatting of 0
annoying enough to avoid %#x for any
Sergei Shtylyov sergei.shtyl...@cogentembedded.com writes:
Why not text:%#lx as already used in this string? It's
equivalent to 0x%lx.
Well, I don't know the reasoning in this case, but I'd like to note that
those are not strictly equivalent. Personally I find the formatting of 0
annoying
On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 13:08 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Sergei Shtylyov sergei.shtyl...@cogentembedded.com writes:
Why not text:%#lx as already used in this string? It's
equivalent to 0x%lx.
Well, I don't know the reasoning in this case, but I'd like to note that
those are not strictly
On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 18:11 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 13:08 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Sergei Shtylyov sergei.shtyl...@cogentembedded.com writes:
Why not text:%#lx as already used in this string? It's
equivalent to 0x%lx.
Well, I don't know the
Hello.
On 05/30/2013 01:09 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Use the already defined macro to pass the function return address.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso
---
net/core/skbuff.c | 14 +++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c
Use the already defined macro to pass the function return address.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso
---
net/core/skbuff.c | 14 +++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
index af9185d..0d06850 100644
--- a/net/core/skbuff.c
Use the already defined macro to pass the function return address.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso davidlohr.bu...@hp.com
---
net/core/skbuff.c | 14 +++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
index af9185d..0d06850 100644
Hello.
On 05/30/2013 01:09 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Use the already defined macro to pass the function return address.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso davidlohr.bu...@hp.com
---
net/core/skbuff.c | 14 +++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git
20 matches
Mail list logo
