On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 10:16:14AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday July 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 12:29:33AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:27:37 +1000 NeilBrown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +static void exp_flags(struct seq_file *m, int flag, int fsid,
> > > > + uid_t anonu, uid_t anong, struct nfsd4_fs_locations
> > > > *fsloc)
> > > > +{
> > > > + show_expflags(m, flag, NFSEXP_ALLFLAGS);
> > > > if (flag & NFSEXP_FSID)
> > > > - seq_printf(m, "%sfsid=%d", first++?",":"", fsid);
> > > > + seq_printf(m, ",fsid=%d", fsid);
> > > > if (anonu != (uid_t)-2 && anonu != (0x10000-2))
> > > > - seq_printf(m, "%sanonuid=%d", first++?",":"", anonu);
> > > > + seq_printf(m, ",sanonuid=%d", anonu);
> > >
> > > It's a bit presumptuous to print a uid_t with "%d". Fortunately it
> > > will work OK with all the present architectures.
> > >
> > > But in general: be cautious when feeding opaque types to printk.
> >
> > OK, here I'm still confused--what should we be doing instead?
>
> Cast the variable to a type that printf knows about.
> seq_printf(m, ",anonuid=%d", (int)anonu);
>
> Or maybe cast it to (long) and use %ld, just in case...
OK. In the event that uid_t some day ceases to eventually become an
int, will the casts help, or will they just suppress useful warnings?
> Note the stray 's' in the current patch, after the comma!
Sharp eyes, thanks! I'll make a patch. Uh, any objection if I print
all those uid's as unsigned while I'm at it?
--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
