On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 11:35:14AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Not true. The original code used 'int irq', and the printf format was > correct as a result. > > You changed the code to use 'unsigned int irq' as found in struct > pci_dev, without changing IRQ_FMT as needed. > > If you wanted to avoid the regression another way, I suppose patch #1 > should update IRQ_FMT to use "%u", and patch #14 should move the "%u" > use to its caller. What do you think the regression is, exactly? The *only* difference in how vsnprintf handles %d vs %u is the sign bit. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
