On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 02:33:56PM +0000, Bernard Metzler wrote: > >> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c > >> > b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c > >> > index 9ce8a1b925d2..ae7ea3ad7224 100644 > >> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c > >> > @@ -355,8 +355,8 @@ static int siw_cm_upcall(struct siw_cep *cep, > >> > enum iw_cm_event_type reason, > >> > getname_local(cep->sock, &event.local_addr); > >> > getname_peer(cep->sock, &event.remote_addr); > >> > } > >> > - siw_dbg_cep(cep, "[QP %u]: id 0x%p, reason=%d, status=%d\n", > >> > - cep->qp ? qp_id(cep->qp) : -1, id, reason, status); > >> > + siw_dbg_cep(cep, "[QP %u]: reason=%d, status=%d\n", > >> > + cep->qp ? qp_id(cep->qp) : -1, reason, status); > >> ^^^^ > >> There is a chance that such construction (attempt to print -1 with > >%u) > >> will generate some sort of warning. > >> > >> Thanks > > > >I didn't see any warnings when I built it. And %u->-1 would be the > >same > >error on 64bit or 32bit, so I think we're safe here. > > > > Doug, > May I ask you to amend this patch in a way which would > just stop this monument of programming stupidity from > prolonging into the future, while of course recognizing > the impossibility of erasing it from the past? > Exchanging the %u with %d would help me regaining > some self-confidence ;) A q?a:b Expression has only a single type. There are some tricky rules on this, but since gcc does not complain on the %u it means 'q?(u32):(int)' is a (u32) and the -1 is implicitly casted. The better thing to write would have been U32_MAX instead of -1 Jason
