Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Monday 12 October 2015 15:59:27 Neil Brown wrote:
>> > diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
>> > index 7fff1e6884d6..e13f72a3b561 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/md/md.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
>> > @@ -8987,9 +8987,9 @@ static void check_sb_changes(struct mddev *mddev, struct md_rdev *rdev)
>> >
>> > /* recovery_cp changed */
>> > if (le64_to_cpu(sb->resync_offset) != mddev->recovery_cp) {
>> > - pr_info("%s:%d recovery_cp changed from %lu to %lu\n", __func__,
>> > - __LINE__, mddev->recovery_cp,
>> > - (unsigned long) le64_to_cpu(sb->resync_offset));
>> > + pr_info("%s:%d recovery_cp changed from %llu to %llu\n", __func__,
>> > + __LINE__, (u64)mddev->recovery_cp,
>> > + (u64) le64_to_cpu(sb->resync_offset));
>> > mddev->recovery_cp = le64_to_cpu(sb->resync_offset);
>> > }
>> >
>>
>> Thanks, but is this really right?
>> I think u64 is "unsigned long" on 64bit.
>> I have always used (unsigned long long) when I want to use %llu on
>> sector_t.
>>
>> How confident are you of using "u64" ?
>
> Very confident ;-)
>
> This used to not work until some linux-2.6 version when we changed all
> architectures to use asm-generic/int-ll64.h in the kernel, because
> a lot of code relied on printing u64 variables using %lld.
>
> I tend to use u64 for things like this because it's shorter than
> 'unsigned long long'.
>
Ahh.. good to know - thanks.
It seems that we've since removed those 'pr_info' lines, so there is
nothing to fix any more. I'll remember that about using "u64" though -
using "unsigned long long" always felt so clumsy.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
