21/05/2021 14:01, Ferruh Yigit: > On 5/19/2021 8:24 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > > > > %lx or %llx tend to be wrong for 32-bit platform > > if used for fixed size variable like uint64_t. > > A checkpatch warning will avoid this common mistake. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > --- > > v2: proposal to reword the message and comment > > --- > > + # check %l or %ll format specifier > > + awk -v FOLDERS='lib drivers app examples' \ > > + -v EXPRESSIONS='%ll*[xud]' \ > > + -v RET_ON_FAIL=1 \ > > + -v MESSAGE='Using %l format, should it be %PRI*64?' \ > > + -f $(dirname $(readlink -f $0))/check-forbidden-tokens.awk \ > > + "$1" || res=1 > > Using the %l or %ll format specifier is correct when the variable type is > "long > int" or "long long int", it is only wrong if the variable type is fixed size > like 'unit64_t'. > > My concern is above warning log may cause people change the correct usage. > > That was why I tried to make wording less strict, more like a reminder to > double > check the usage.
This is a question now: "should it be", why do you think it is strict? > If we can check that format specifier is used for 'unit64_t' variable, that > will > be the best solution but that is very hard to do. > Should we add a little more information to the message to prevent false hit on > the correct usage? Your message was: "Please check %llx usage which tends to be wrong most of the times" Mine: "Using %l format, should it be %PRI*64?" Trying to give more info about what can be wrong while keeping short: "Using %l format, is it a long variable or should it be %PRI*64?
