On 09/20/2013 08:07 AM, David Howells wrote:
I suspect he doesn't really need to implement a "strerror()" function but
should rather build it straight into printk()/vsprintf().
David
Indeed we don't necessarily *need* a strerror() function per-se, but it
is an addition to the libc support in
On 09/20/2013 06:45 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 00:21 -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
[nice example about bloat]
Yeah, I do agree, I just don't see how to do it without introducing
unnecessary bloat.
I think the code size cost of %pE is pretty trivial
compared to the log size/run
Joe Perches wrote:
> > Yeah, I do agree, I just don't see how to do it without introducing
> > unnecessary bloat.
>
> I think the code size cost of %pE is pretty trivial
> compared to the log size/runtime cost.
>
> I would not want to see it used generically.
I suspect he doesn't really need
On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 00:21 -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
[nice example about bloat]
> Yeah, I do agree, I just don't see how to do it without introducing
> unnecessary bloat.
I think the code size cost of %pE is pretty trivial
compared to the log size/runtime cost.
I would not want to see it us
On 09/19/2013 08:07 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 20:27 -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
if I use ERR_PTR() on a signed int on a x86_64 where pointer
is 64 bits and int is 32, wouldn't that mean a signed conversion
instruction where the sign bit has to be moved from bit 31 to 63?
No.
On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 20:27 -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
> if I use ERR_PTR() on a signed int on a x86_64 where pointer
> is 64 bits and int is 32, wouldn't that mean a signed conversion
> instruction where the sign bit has to be moved from bit 31 to 63?
No. It's cast to long
static inline void
On 09/18/2013 06:04 AM, David Howells wrote:
Joe Perches wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 18:08 -0500, danielfsan...@att.net wrote:
This adds an extension for the integral format specifier suffix of 'e',
so that the format %[duxXo]e will result in printing an number (as
before) in addition to a
Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 18:08 -0500, danielfsan...@att.net wrote:
> > This adds an extension for the integral format specifier suffix of 'e',
> > so that the format %[duxXo]e will result in printing an number (as
> > before) in addition to a name and descrption for an error cod
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 18:08 -0500, danielfsan...@att.net wrote:
> This adds an extension for the integral format specifier suffix of 'e',
> so that the format %[duxXo]e will result in printing an number (as
> before) in addition to a name and descrption for an error code, if such
> support is enabl
This adds an extension for the integral format specifier suffix of 'e',
so that the format %[duxXo]e will result in printing an number (as
before) in addition to a name and descrption for an error code, if such
support is enabled and a name and descrption is found.
My initial thought was to use th
10 matches
Mail list logo
