Hi Stephen,
On 3/1/24 15:30, Shuah Khan wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 3/1/24 13:46, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Shuah,
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 09:05:57 -0700 Shuah Khan <sk...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On 3/1/24 03:43, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:15:02 +0800 David Gow <david...@google.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 23:07, Shuah Khan <sk...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I can carry the fix through kselftest kunit if it works
for all.
I'm happy for this to go in with the KUnit changes if that's the best
way to keep all of the printk formatting fixes together.
Unfortunately you can't fix this in the kunit-next tree without pulling
in Linus' tree (or the drm-fixes tree) - which seems excessive.
I am pretty sure that the proper fix has been applied to the
drm-fixes tree today (in the merge of the drm-misc-fixes tree).
I misread your message.
What's the commit id for this fix? I Would like to include the details
in my pull request to Linus.
My mistake, I misread the merge commit. It has not been fixed in the
drm-misc-fixes tree or the drm-fixes tree (or Linus' tree since the
drm-fixes tree has been merged there) :-(
The problem in this case is not with the format string types, but with
a missing argument i.e. there is another argument required by the
format string. It really should be fixed in the drm-misc-fixes tree
and sent to Linus post haste.
Agreed.
At least the change in the kunit-next tree will stop this happening in
the future.
I misread you message and asked David to send a fix.
I will send pull request with the mention of your fix up to this error
in your first message.
thanks,
-- Shuah
