On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:24:27 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 2017 20:43:58 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Max virtual processor will be needed for 'extended' hypercalls supporting
> > > more than 64 vCPUs. While on it, unify on 'Hyper-V' in mshyperv.c as we
> > > currently have a mix, report acquired misc features as well.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com>
> > > Acked-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <k...@microsoft.com>
> > > Tested-by: Simon Xiao <six...@microsoft.com>
> > > Tested-by: Srikanth Myakam <v-...@microsoft.com>
> >
> > > + u32 max_vp_index;
> > > + u32 max_lp_index;
> >
> > > + pr_info("Hyper-V: max %d virtual processors, %d logical
> > > processors\n",
> > > + ms_hyperv.max_vp_index, ms_hyperv.max_lp_index);
> >
> > And surprisingly no-one from the above list did not get a warning?!
Gcc 6.3 does not warn when %d is used on unsigned values.
> Begs to question how many other warnings are they ignoring?
None.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
