On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 12:43:32PM -0500, Chris Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:48:55AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > I had to search the sources to realise the fat filesystem type is called
> > > MSDOS. Maybe at least a header can be mentioned in disklabel(8)?
> >
> > Sorry, ever
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:48:55AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I had to search the sources to realise the fat filesystem type is called
> > MSDOS. Maybe at least a header can be mentioned in disklabel(8)?
>
> Sorry, everyone knows it is called the MSDOS filesystem. 'FAT' is the new
> silly na
> I had to search the sources to realise the fat filesystem type is called
> MSDOS. Maybe at least a header can be mentioned in disklabel(8)?
Sorry, everyone knows it is called the MSDOS filesystem. 'FAT' is the new
silly name.
I don't see much value in pointing people from our manual pages to .
I had to search the sources to realise the fat filesystem type is called
MSDOS. Maybe at least a header can be mentioned in disklabel(8)?
Index: disklabel.8
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/disklabel/disklabel.8,v
retrieving revision 1.107
The log(pri, "") triggers a 'zero-length kprintf format string' warning
which causes gcc to error out despite -Wno-error=format.
OK to commit this patch?
--- sys/kern/subr_disk.c
+++ sys/kern/subr_disk.c
@@ -761,13 +761,14 @@ diskerr(struct buf *bp, char *dname, char *what, int pri,
int blkdo
On Saturday 06 April 2013, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > From: Stefan Fritsch
> > Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 13:04:04 +0200
> >
> > Also, there does not seem to be a header in the kernel yet, that
> > defines the standard PRI*. Should there be a new inttypes.h or,
> > since we probably want to define these
> From: Stefan Fritsch
> Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 13:04:04 +0200
>
> Also, there does not seem to be a header in the kernel yet, that
> defines the standard PRI*. Should there be a new inttypes.h or, since
> we probably want to define these always, do we put them into
> {,_}types.h?
There is no
On Saturday 06 April 2013, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > - define a few macros for special types, e.g. bus_addr_t and
> > time_t and use them
>
> It was decided to cast bus_*_t to long long and print them with
> %lld, rather than introduce kernel-only PRIfoo macros.
Is this documented somewhere? If not,
> compiling the kernel with -Wno-format is annoying for development and
> hides real bugs. It seems gcc has attribute format kprintf since a few
> years already. What is missing until we can remove -Wno-format? Any
> pointers to prior discussions about this?
It is missing the actual format fixe
Hi,
compiling the kernel with -Wno-format is annoying for development and
hides real bugs. It seems gcc has attribute format kprintf since a few
years already. What is missing until we can remove -Wno-format? Any
pointers to prior discussions about this?
AFAICS, things that remain to be done a
10 matches
Mail list logo
