> From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 2:47 PM > To: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>; Xen-devel > <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org> > Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com>; Ross Lagerwall > <ross.lagerw...@citrix.com>; Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>; > Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org>; Volodymyr Babchuk > <volodymyr_babc...@epam.com>; Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marq...@arm.com>; > Roger Pau Monne <roger....@citrix.com>; Wei Liu <w...@xen.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] xen/ELF: Fix ELF32 PRI formatters > > On 17/04/2023 1:31 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 17.04.2023 14:13, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >> --- a/xen/common/livepatch_elf.c > >> +++ b/xen/common/livepatch_elf.c > >> @@ -310,12 +310,12 @@ int livepatch_elf_resolve_symbols(struct > >> livepatch_elf *elf) > >> break; > >> } > >> } > >> - dprintk(XENLOG_DEBUG, LIVEPATCH "%s: Undefined symbol > >> resolved: %s => %#"PRIxElfAddr"\n", > >> + dprintk(XENLOG_DEBUG, LIVEPATCH "%s: Undefined symbol > >> resolved: %s => 0x%08"PRIxElfAddr"\n", > > I don't see what's wrong with using %# here (and below); I also don't see > > what value it has to zero-pad to 8 digits when the printed value either > > is far below 4G (when representing just a section offset) or likely far > > above (when representing a real address on 64-bit). But once again I'll > > leave judging to the maintainers. > > Hmm - I could be persuaded to drop everything in livepatch_elf.c. I > guess that makes it more consistent with the 64bit side too.
Indeed, I would prefer without the changes in xen/common/livepatch_elf.c With those dropped, Reviewed-by: Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerw...@citrix.com>
