compile warnings due to change of pci resource element type

Trying to comple the latest version (2.6.11-rc5-mm1) gives a huge amount of warnings in a lot of files due to printf formats (and a couple of other minor issues) that have %lx instead of %llx for the "start" element in the pci_resource struct whose type was changed from u32 to u64.

These are relatively easy to fix and need to be fixed because of potential stack issues with var arg functions like printk and friends.

My question is: should I do this or is someone else working on this, perhaps a better fix than simply changing the majority of occurrences of "%lx" to "%llx"?

Quoted 8 lines · Stephen Biggs

Trying to comple the latest version (2.6.11-rc5-mm1) gives a huge amount of warnings in a lot of files due to printf formats (and a couple of other minor issues) that have %lx instead of %llx for the "start" element in the pci_resource struct whose type was changed from u32 to u64.

These are relatively easy to fix and need to be fixed because of potential stack issues with var arg functions like printk and friends.

Quoted 3 lines

My question is: should I do this or is someone else working on this, perhaps a better fix than simply changing the majority of occurrences of "%lx" to "%llx"?

I read messages on lkml that the pci resource patch was being dropped temporarily to fix some issues.... Perhaps its patch submitter will be fixing those, I dunno.

Quoted 13 lines · Randy.Dunlap

Quoted 11 lines · Stephen Biggs

Trying to comple the latest version (2.6.11-rc5-mm1) gives a huge amount of warnings in a lot of files due to printf formats (and a couple of other minor issues) that have %lx instead of %llx for the "start" element in the pci_resource struct whose type was changed from u32 to u64.

These are relatively easy to fix and need to be fixed because of potential stack issues with var arg functions like printk and friends.

My question is: should I do this or is someone else working on this, perhaps a better fix than simply changing the majority of occurrences of "%lx" to "%llx"?

Quoted 3 lines

I read messages on lkml that the pci resource patch was being dropped temporarily to fix some issues.... Perhaps its patch submitter will be fixing those, I dunno.

Odds are, it will be me :(

So yes, I will gladly take those kinds of patches.

But you need to convert:
"%lx", resource_variable
to:
"%llx", (unsigned long long)resource_variable

to make it work on all platforms.

thanks,

greg k-h

Quoted 6 lines

But you need to convert:
"%lx", resource_variable
to:
"%llx", (unsigned long long)resource_variable

to make it work on all platforms.

Shouldn't it be (u64) instead of (unsigned long long)?

Quoted 14 lines · Greg KH

Quoted 13 lines · Randy.Dunlap

Quoted 11 lines · Stephen Biggs

Trying to comple the latest version (2.6.11-rc5-mm1) gives a huge amount of warnings in a lot of files due to printf formats (and a couple of other minor issues) that have %lx instead of %llx for the "start" element in the pci_resource struct whose type was changed from u32 to u64.

These are relatively easy to fix and need to be fixed because of potential stack issues with var arg functions like printk and friends.

My question is: should I do this or is someone else working on this, perhaps a better fix than simply changing the majority of occurrences of "%lx" to "%llx"?

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 3 lines

I read messages on lkml that the pci resource patch was being dropped temporarily to fix some issues.... Perhaps its patch submitter will be fixing those, I dunno.

Odds are, it will be me :(

So yes, I will gladly take those kinds of patches.

Yes, OK, I'll start working on it soon.

Quick question: I see these problems on 2.6.11-rc5-mm1 but NOT on the mainline kernel of 2.6.11. Also, see my previous email about 2.6.11-kj patch not applying cleanly at all to the rc5-mm1 BUT applies perfectly to the mainline 2.6.11.

Which kernel version should I be working with? Since there is now a release of 2.6.11, isn't the proper version for us now 2.6.12-rc1, as soon as it's created??

I am confused.

Quoted 35 lines · Stephen Biggs

Quoted 14 lines · Greg KH

Quoted 13 lines · Randy.Dunlap

Quoted 11 lines · Stephen Biggs

Trying to comple the latest version (2.6.11-rc5-mm1) gives a huge amount of warnings in a lot of files due to printf formats (and a couple of other minor issues) that have %lx instead of %llx for the "start" element in the pci_resource struct whose type was changed from u32 to u64.

These are relatively easy to fix and need to be fixed because of potential stack issues with var arg functions like printk and friends.

My question is: should I do this or is someone else working on this, perhaps a better fix than simply changing the majority of occurrences of "%lx" to "%llx"?

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 3 lines

I read messages on lkml that the pci resource patch was being dropped temporarily to fix some issues.... Perhaps its patch submitter will be fixing those, I dunno.

Odds are, it will be me :(

So yes, I will gladly take those kinds of patches.

Yes, OK, I'll start working on it soon.

Quick question: I see these problems on 2.6.11-rc5-mm1 but NOT on the mainline kernel of 2.6.11. Also, see my previous email about 2.6.11-kj patch not applying cleanly at all to the rc5-mm1 BUT applies perfectly to the mainline 2.6.11.

Which kernel version should I be working with? Since there is now a release of 2.6.11, isn't the proper version for us now 2.6.12-rc1, as soon as it's created??

Quoted 1 line

I am confused.

I am not sure why you would think 2.6.11-kj would apply to anything except 2.6.11. That's why it's *2.6.11*-kj not 2.6.11-rc5-mm1-kj. That's the whole point of labelling the releases that way.

So, if you want to apply -kj, you apply to it's prefix. Sometimes, admittedly, it will apply with fuzz to other trees, but that's incidental.

Also, please read the threads regarding the new kernel naming procedure. You should apply your patches against mainline (currently 2.6.11), unless the issue only exists in -mm and the patch which causes the issue is also only in -mm.

Thanks,
Nish

Quoted 41 lines · Nish Aravamudan

Quoted 38 lines · Stephen Biggs

Quoted 16 lines · Greg KH

Quoted 14 lines · Randy.Dunlap

Quoted 11 lines · Stephen Biggs

Trying to comple the latest version (2.6.11-rc5-mm1) gives a huge amount of warnings in a lot of files due to printf formats (and a couple of other minor issues) that have %lx instead of %llx for the "start" element in the pci_resource struct whose type was changed from u32 to u64.

These are relatively easy to fix and need to be fixed because of potential stack issues with var arg functions like printk and friends.

My question is: should I do this or is someone else working on this, perhaps a better fix than simply changing the majority of occurrences of "%lx" to "%llx"?

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 3 lines

I read messages on lkml that the pci resource patch was being dropped temporarily to fix some issues.... Perhaps its patch submitter will be fixing those, I dunno.

Odds are, it will be me :(

So yes, I will gladly take those kinds of patches.

Yes, OK, I'll start working on it soon.

Quick question: I see these problems on 2.6.11-rc5-mm1 but NOT on the mainline kernel of 2.6.11. Also, see my previous email about 2.6.11-kj patch not applying cleanly at all to the rc5-mm1 BUT applies perfectly to the mainline 2.6.11.

Which kernel version should I be working with? Since there is now a release of 2.6.11, isn't the proper version for us now 2.6.12-rc1, as soon as it's created??

Quoted 5 lines

Quoted 1 line

I am confused.

I am not sure why you would think 2.6.11-kj would apply to anything except 2.6.11. That's why it's *2.6.11*-kj not 2.6.11-rc5-mm1-kj. That's the whole point of labelling the releases that way.

Yes, thanks for the clear explanation.

Quoted 3 lines

So, if you want to apply -kj, you apply to it's prefix. Sometimes, admittedly, it will apply with fuzz to other trees, but that's incidental.

Ok, this I can understand and accept.

Quoted 4 lines

Also, please read the threads regarding the new kernel naming procedure. You should apply your patches against mainline (currently 2.6.11), unless the issue only exists in -mm and the patch which causes the issue is also only in -mm.

Here is the source of my confusion:
http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/kernel-janitors/2005-February/003315.html

... wherein Jim Nelson says, in part: "Work off of -mm, since most of the janitorial work will go through Andrew Morton's series for awhile before being pushed into mainline."

Can you please send me links to the threads you are referring to so I can read them for myself and get a grip on this?

However, even with the naming issues cleared up in my head, I am still confused by the other issue. I am assuming that the pci resource retype is only in -mm? If so, I am still confused about which version to work off of. That is, if I apply the -kj patch to the mainline, I should then apply the -mm patch that just now appeared in Andrew Morton's directore for the mainline?

Maybe this is moot right now, since I see that this particular patch WAS in 2.6.11-rc5-mm1, but is not in 2.6.11-mm1. Guess I'll wait until this is placed back in.