On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 15:56:48 +0000 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > In reality, we already know both of these values are positive > but it is still better to make that explicit at the point of use > with abs(). > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> Maintainers curse. If someone could sanity check this that would be great. I never trust myself not to do anything stupid :) Jonathan > --- > drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c b/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c > index c2e4c267c36b..00644666f7fe 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c > @@ -608,14 +608,14 @@ static ssize_t __iio_format_value(char *buf, size_t len, unsigned int type, > return scnprintf(buf, len, "-%d.%06u%s", abs(vals[0]), > -vals[1], scale_db ? " dB" : ""); > else > - return scnprintf(buf, len, "%d.%06u%s", vals[0], vals[1], > + return scnprintf(buf, len, "%d.%06u%s", vals[0], abs(vals[1]), > scale_db ? " dB" : ""); > case IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_NANO: > if (vals[1] < 0) > return scnprintf(buf, len, "-%d.%09u", abs(vals[0]), > -vals[1]); > else > - return scnprintf(buf, len, "%d.%09u", vals[0], vals[1]); > + return scnprintf(buf, len, "%d.%09u", vals[0], abs(vals[1])); > case IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL: > tmp2 = div_s64((s64)vals[0] * 1000000000LL, vals[1]); > tmp1 = vals[1];
