On Thu, 12 May 2011, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > Although I'm not sure if there's precedent for a %p value that didn't > > > > take a argument. Thoughts on that? Anyone else have an opinion here? > > > The uses of %ptc must add an argument or else gcc will complain. > > > I suggest you just ignore the argument value and use current. > > That doesn't make any sense, why would you needlessly restrict this to > > current when accesses to other threads' ->comm needs to be protected in > > the same way? I'd like to use this in the oom killer and try to get rid > > of taking task_lock() for every thread group leader in the tasklist dump. > > I suppose another view is coder stuffed up, let them suffer... > > At some point, gcc may let us extend printf argument type > verification so it may not be a continuing problem. > I don't understand your respose, could you answer my question? Printing the command of threads other than current isn't special. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>