On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 at 17:26, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 4:23 AM Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Crossbuilding selftests/bpf for architecture arm64, format specifies
> > type error show up like.
> >
> > xskxceiver.c:912:34: error: format specifies type 'int' but the argument
> > has type '__u64' (aka 'unsigned long long') [-Werror,-Wformat]
> > ksft_print_msg("[%s] expected meta_count [%d], got meta_count [%d]\n",
> > ~~
> > %llu
> > __func__, pkt->pkt_nb, meta->count);
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~
> > xskxceiver.c:929:55: error: format specifies type 'unsigned long long' but
> > the argument has type 'u64' (aka 'unsigned long') [-Werror,-Wformat]
> > ksft_print_msg("Frag invalid addr: %llx len: %u\n", addr, len);
> > ~~~~ ^~~~
> >
>
> With u64s it might be %llx or %lx, depending on architecture, so best
> is to force cast to (long long) or (unsigned long long) and then use
> %llx.
Thank you Andrii,
v2 posted https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231108110048.1988128-1-anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
Cheers,
Anders
>
> > Fixing the issues by using the proposed format specifiers by the
> > compilor.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c | 10 +++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c
> > index 591ca9637b23..dc03692f34d8 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c
> > @@ -908,7 +908,7 @@ static bool is_metadata_correct(struct pkt *pkt, void *buffer, u64 addr)
> > struct xdp_info *meta = data - sizeof(struct xdp_info);
> >
> > if (meta->count != pkt->pkt_nb) {
> > - ksft_print_msg("[%s] expected meta_count [%d], got meta_count [%d]\n",
> > + ksft_print_msg("[%s] expected meta_count [%d], got meta_count [%llu]\n",
> > __func__, pkt->pkt_nb, meta->count);
> > return false;
> > }
> > @@ -926,11 +926,11 @@ static bool is_frag_valid(struct xsk_umem_info *umem, u64 addr, u32 len, u32 exp
> >
> > if (addr >= umem->num_frames * umem->frame_size ||
> > addr + len > umem->num_frames * umem->frame_size) {
> > - ksft_print_msg("Frag invalid addr: %llx len: %u\n", addr, len);
> > + ksft_print_msg("Frag invalid addr: %lx len: %u\n", addr, len);
> > return false;
> > }
> > if (!umem->unaligned_mode && addr % umem->frame_size + len > umem->frame_size) {
> > - ksft_print_msg("Frag crosses frame boundary addr: %llx len: %u\n", addr, len);
> > + ksft_print_msg("Frag crosses frame boundary addr: %lx len: %u\n", addr, len);
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1029,7 +1029,7 @@ static int complete_pkts(struct xsk_socket_info *xsk, int batch_size)
> > u64 addr = *xsk_ring_cons__comp_addr(&xsk->umem->cq, idx + rcvd - 1);
> >
> > ksft_print_msg("[%s] Too many packets completed\n", __func__);
> > - ksft_print_msg("Last completion address: %llx\n", addr);
> > + ksft_print_msg("Last completion address: %lx\n", addr);
> > return TEST_FAILURE;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1513,7 +1513,7 @@ static int validate_tx_invalid_descs(struct ifobject *ifobject)
> > }
> >
> > if (stats.tx_invalid_descs != ifobject->xsk->pkt_stream->nb_pkts / 2) {
> > - ksft_print_msg("[%s] tx_invalid_descs incorrect. Got [%u] expected [%u]\n",
> > + ksft_print_msg("[%s] tx_invalid_descs incorrect. Got [%llu] expected [%u]\n",
> > __func__, stats.tx_invalid_descs,
> > ifobject->xsk->pkt_stream->nb_pkts);
> > return TEST_FAILURE;
> > --
> > 2.42.0
> >
> >
