Dear maintainer,
Is this one accepted or droped?
Or I missed the right person?
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 04:49:24PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>There two warnings in bench/numa, when buiding this on 32-bit machine.
>
>The warning output is attached:
>
>bench/numa.c:1113:20: error: comparison between signed and unsigned integer
>expressions [-Werror=sign-compare]
>bench/numa.c:1161:6: error: format ‘%lx’ expects argument of t'long unsigned
>int’, but argument 5 has type ‘u64’ [-Werror=format]
>
>This patch fixs these two warnings.
>
>Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiy...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>---
> tools/perf/bench/numa.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/tools/perf/bench/numa.c b/tools/perf/bench/numa.c
>index 30d1c32..a73c4ed 100644
>--- a/tools/perf/bench/numa.c
>+++ b/tools/perf/bench/numa.c
>@@ -1110,7 +1110,7 @@ static void *worker_thread(void *__tdata)
> /* Check whether our max runtime timed out: */
> if (g->p.nr_secs) {
> timersub(&stop, &start0, &diff);
>- if (diff.tv_sec >= g->p.nr_secs) {
>+ if (diff.tv_sec >= (time_t)g->p.nr_secs) {
> g->stop_work = true;
> break;
> }
>@@ -1157,7 +1157,7 @@ static void *worker_thread(void *__tdata)
> runtime_ns_max += diff.tv_usec * 1000;
>
> if (details >= 0) {
>- printf(" #%2d / %2d: %14.2lf nsecs/op [val:
>%016lx]\n",
>+ printf(" #%2d / %2d: %14.2lf nsecs/op [val:
>%016"PRIu64"]\n",
> process_nr, thread_nr, runtime_ns_max /
> bytes_done, val);
> }
> fflush(stdout);
>--
>1.7.5.4
--
Richard Yang
Help you, Help me
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
