On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:00:55 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 10:13:28 +0900 (JST) Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I've got a warning from 0day kernel testing backend:
>>
>> fs/nilfs2/btree.c: In function 'nilfs_btree_root_broken':
>> >> fs/nilfs2/btree.c:394:3: warning: format '%lu' expects argument of type 'long unsigned int', but argument 2 has type 'ino_t' [-Wformat=]
>> pr_crit("NILFS: bad btree root (inode number=%lu): level = %d,
>> flags = 0x%x, nchildren = %d\n",
>> ^
>>
>> This is output for s390 arch since ino_t doesn't mean "unsigned long"
>> in s390.
>
> alpha uses uint for ino_t as well.
>
> It seems a bit pointless - neither arch uses ino_t in ./arch/ code. I
> suspect both could switch to ulong, which would make the world a
> slightly better place.
I entirely agree.
Regards,
Ryusuke Konishi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
