> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cochran [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 2:53 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Amir Vadai; Ariel Elior; Arnd Bergmann;
> Baolin Wang; Ben Hutchings; Allan, Bruce W; Wyborny, Carolyn; Chris
> Metcalf; David Miller; Frank Li; Giuseppe Cavallaro; Keller, Jacob E; Kirsher,
> Jeffrey T; John Stultz; Luwei Zhou; Vick, Matthew; Michael Chan; Prashant
> Sreedharan; Rayagond K; Shradha Shah; Solarflare linux maintainers; Sonic
> Zhang; Stefan S?rensen; Thomas Gleixner; Tom Lendacky
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V3 13/23] ptp: igb: convert to the 64 bit
> get/set time methods.
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:12:03PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
>
> > @@ -627,11 +628,11 @@ static void igb_ptp_overflow_check(struct
> work_struct *work)
> > {
> > struct igb_adapter *igb =
> > container_of(work, struct igb_adapter,
> ptp_overflow_work.work);
> > - struct timespec ts;
> > + struct timespec64 ts;
> >
> > - igb->ptp_caps.gettime(&igb->ptp_caps, &ts);
> > + igb->ptp_caps.gettime64(&igb->ptp_caps, &ts);
> >
> > - pr_debug("igb overflow check at %ld.%09lu\n", ts.tv_sec,
> ts.tv_nsec);
> > + pr_debug("igb overflow check at %lld.%09lu\n", ts.tv_sec,
> ts.tv_nsec);
>
> For a 64 bit build, this produces the same warning as e1000e.
>
> What is the best way to deal with this warning?
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
I don't know how kernel would fix this. Usually macros like PRI64d are used but I am not sure those are defined for the kernel builds
Regards,
Jake
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 12:06:56AM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> I don't know how kernel would fix this. Usually macros like PRI64d are used but I am not sure those are defined for the kernel builds
Davem fixed it by casting to (long long).
Thanks,
Richard