Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> * Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:26:21 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 09:17 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>>>> [adding cc:s] >>>>>> >>>>>> [same report for March 12] >>>>>> >>>>>> Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>>>>> Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Changes since 20090310: >>>>>>> Building on i386 generates a ton of printk format warnings: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> kernel/trace/trace_events.c:470: warning: format '%lu' expects type 'long unsigned int', but argument 5 has type 'unsigned int' >>>>>>> kernel/trace/trace_events.c:470: warning: format '%lu' expects type 'long unsigned int', but argument 6 has type 'unsigned int' >>>>>>> kernel/trace/trace_events.c:470: warning: format '%lu' expects type 'long unsigned int', but argument 9 has type 'unsigned int' >>>>>>> kernel/trace/trace_events.c:470: warning: format '%lu' expects type 'long unsigned int', but argument 10 has type 'unsigned int' >>>>>>> kernel/trace/trace_events.c:470: warning: format '%lu' expects type 'long unsigned int', but argument 13 has type 'unsigned int' >>>>>>> kernel/trace/trace_events.c:470: warning: format '%lu' expects type 'long unsigned int', but argument 14 has type 'unsigned int' >>>>>>> kernel/trace/trace_events.c:470: warning: format '%lu' expects type 'long unsigned int', but argument 17 has type 'unsigned int' >>>>>>> kernel/trace/trace_events.c:470: warning: format '%lu' expects type 'long unsigned int', but argument 18 has type 'unsigned int' >>>>>>> kernel/trace/trace_events.c:470: warning: format '%lu' expects type 'long unsigned int', but argument 21 has type 'unsigned int' >>>>>>> kernel/trace/trace_events.c:470: warning: format '%lu' expects type 'long unsigned int', but argument 22 has type 'unsigned int' >>>>>>> >>>>> I believe this is corrected in Ingo's tip tree. I changed %lu to %zu to >>>>> handle the "sizeof()" case. The fix was suggested by Andrew Morton. >>>> This build warning is still around (20090318). >>>> Is the fix not in some branch that is imported into linux-next or what? >>> be patient. >>> >>> Ingo >> I think that 7 days is being patient for a simple build fix. > > s/build fix/harmless build warning fix 180+ lines of noise in a build log. > If you are interested in having a resolution you can git-merge the > latest development tree yourself and you can get rid of that > warning. > > Of course that way you'd expose yourself to even fresher code, > potentially with much more serious breakages. > > It's a balance of freshness versus stability, and that balance is > kept by maintainers. > > If you want the latest development code - go engage with the > development trees directly. > > If you want something that is relatively new (i.e. 1-2 weeks fresh) > but works on the range of systems we test, use what you get in > linux-next. > > It's your choice which one you pick. > > But you cannot have both. > > If you genuinely think you can have it both, by all means i > encourage you to try it - it's all open source so you can run your > own tree. Just please dont feel entitled to demand it from others. Thanks for the explanation. That's what I tried to ask for to begin with. I guess that I have a language problem. -- ~Randy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
