I wonder if anyone can reproduce this behaviour on other architectures
(this was SH4)?
code is:
printk("PAGE_SIZE is 0x%X\n", PAGE_SIZE);
printk("Offset is 0x%X, PAGE_SIZE is 0x%X, readlen is 0x%X\n", offset,
PAGE_SIZE, readlen)
Output is:
[ 162.603348] PAGE_SIZE is 0x1000
[ 162.607473] Offset is 0x0, PAGE_SIZE is 0x0, readlen is 0x1000
ie PAGE_SIZE is incorrectly reported in the second printk (these are
consecutive lines of code)
offset is loff_t and readlen is unsigned long.
Adrian
> printk("PAGE_SIZE is 0x%X\n", PAGE_SIZE);
> printk("Offset is 0x%X, PAGE_SIZE is 0x%X, readlen is 0x%X\n", offset,
> PAGE_SIZE, readlen)
>
> Output is:
>
> [ 162.603348] PAGE_SIZE is 0x1000
> [ 162.607473] Offset is 0x0, PAGE_SIZE is 0x0, readlen is 0x1000
>
> ie PAGE_SIZE is incorrectly reported in the second printk (these are
> consecutive lines of code)
>
> offset is loff_t and readlen is unsigned long.
ie offset is a 64-bit type but the printk format for it is %x, which
presumably only consumes 32 bits on SH4? Seems like your code is buggy
and you ignored a compiler warning about printk format mismatch?
- R.
2009/3/7 Roland Dreier <[email protected]>:
>
> ie offset is a 64-bit type but the printk format for it is %x, which
> presumably only consumes 32 bits on SH4? ?Seems like your code is buggy
> and you ignored a compiler warning about printk format mismatch?
>
> ?- R.
>
Yes, loff_t is a long long but why did it work in the first line and
not the second?
Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> 2009/3/7 Roland Dreier <[email protected]>:
>
>> ie offset is a 64-bit type but the printk format for it is %x, which
>> presumably only consumes 32 bits on SH4? Seems like your code is buggy
>> and you ignored a compiler warning about printk format mismatch?
>>
>> - R.
>>
>
> Yes, loff_t is a long long but why did it work in the first line and
> not the second?
It didn't. You didn't print loff_t in the first printk, and the variable
size mismatch corrupted the next value being printed in the second one.