On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:14:13PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:27:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > [...] > > ./include/linux/kern_levels.h:5:18: warning: format ‘%lu’ expects argument > > of type ‘long unsigned int’, but argument 2 has type ‘unsigned int’ > > [-Wformat=] 5 | #define KERN_SOH "\001" /* ASCII Start Of Header */ | > > ^~~~~~ > > ./include/linux/kern_levels.h:9:20: note: in expansion of macro ‘KERN_SOH’ > > 9 | #define KERN_ALERT KERN_SOH "1" /* action must be taken immediately */ > > | ^~~~~~~~ > > ./include/linux/printk.h:295:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘KERN_ALERT’ > > 295 | printk(KERN_ALERT pr_fmt(fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__) > > | ^~~~~~~~~~ > > kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c:726:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘pr_alert’ > > 726 | pr_alert("kfree object size=%lu\n", kfree_mult * sizeof(struct kfree_obj)); > > | ^~~~~~~~ > > kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c:726:32: note: format string is defined here > > 726 | pr_alert("kfree object size=%lu\n", kfree_mult * sizeof(struct kfree_obj)); > > | ~~^ > > | | > > | long unsigned int > > | %u > > > > > > The reason for the warning is that both kfree_mult and sizeof() are > > 'int' types on 32-bit kernels, while the format string expects a long. > > > > Instead of casting the type to long or tweaking the format string, the > > most straightforward solution is to upgrade kfree_mult to a long. > > Since this depends on CONFIG_RCU_PERF_TEST > > Thanks for fixing it. > > > BTW., could we please also rename this code from 'PERF_TEST'/'perf test' > > to 'PERFORMANCE_TEST'/'performance test'? At first glance I always > > mistakenly believe that it's somehow related to perf, while it isn't. =B-) > > Would it be better to call it 'RCUPERF_TEST' instead of the > 'RCU_PERFORMANCE_TEST' you are proposing? I feel the word 'PERFORMANCE' is > too long. Also, 'rcuperf test' instead of the 'rcu performance test' you are > proposing. I am Ok with doing it however you and Paul want it though, let me > know. As long as we are bikeshedding the name... How about refscale.c and RCU_REF_SCALE_TEST on the one hand and rcuscale.c and RCU_SCALE_TEST on the other? That keeps the names reasonably short and does not allude to perf at all. > Paul, should I send you a renaming patch for the new performance tests as > well (which I believe should be in the -dev branch). I am still modifying refperf/refscale/refwhatever, so I will update that one. Thanx, Paul
![]() |