On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:32:50 -0800, Yinghai Lu said:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > or you prefer to cast them to pointer and use %pR for them all?
> >
> > or fix printk to add extra 2 for "0x" when # is found?
>
> looks like we have lots of %#010llx or %#010Lx there in
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> No, it won't... try it.
>
yes, you are right. this patch is not needed.
Thanks
Yinghai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info a
No, it won't... try it.
Yinghai Lu wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:08 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Use %#010llx
>
>that will only print out 0x87654321 when val is 0xa987654321
--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:08 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Use %#010llx
that will only print out 0x87654321 when val is 0xa987654321
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.
Use %#010llx
Yinghai Lu wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 11/16/2012 11:21 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
NAK, this is expected to match the resource print format (%pR),
>which
prints 10 digits by default and then expands. Furthermore,
>printing
*
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/16/2012 11:21 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> NAK, this is expected to match the resource print format (%pR), which
>>> prints 10 digits by default and then expands. Furthermore, printing
>>> *18* digits is downright silly since we sti
On 11/16/2012 11:32 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> or fix printk to add extra 2 for "0x" when # is found?
>
> looks like we have lots of %#010llx or %#010Lx there in arch/x86.
>
> We need to fix printk to make it acting like %pR ?
>
No, it was a thinko on my part.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe
On 11/16/2012 11:21 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> NAK, this is expected to match the resource print format (%pR), which
>> prints 10 digits by default and then expands. Furthermore, printing
>> *18* digits is downright silly since we still don't have 72-bit addressing.
>
> that is the same as in e8
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:05 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 11/16/2012 12:53 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> ramdisk could be loaded high now for 64bit.
>>>
>>> So need to print more digits for them.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu
>>> Cc: Matt
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:05 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/16/2012 12:53 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> ramdisk could be loaded high now for 64bit.
>>
>> So need to print more digits for them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu
>> Cc: Matt Fleming
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/setup.c |8
>>
On 11/16/2012 12:53 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> ramdisk could be loaded high now for 64bit.
>
> So need to print more digits for them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu
> Cc: Matt Fleming
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/setup.c |8
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --gi
ramdisk could be loaded high now for 64bit.
So need to print more digits for them.
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu
Cc: Matt Fleming
---
arch/x86/kernel/setup.c |8
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
index c2eb
12 matches
Mail list logo
