Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753356Ab3J3DTD (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:19:03 -0400 Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.148]:55500 "EHLO e23smtp06.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752137Ab3J3DTB (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:19:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:18:38 +0800 From: Wei Yang To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acme@ghostprotocols.net, mingo@redhat.com Cc: weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: fix two warning in bench/numa Message-ID: <20131030031838.GA9662@weiyang.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Wei Yang References: <1379839764-9245-1-git-send-email-weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1379839764-9245-1-git-send-email-weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13103003-7014-0000-0000-000003D8FC66 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1818 Lines: 54 Dear maintainer, Is this one accepted or droped? Or I missed the right person? On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 04:49:24PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >There two warnings in bench/numa, when buiding this on 32-bit machine. > >The warning output is attached: > >bench/numa.c:1113:20: error: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions [-Werror=sign-compare] >bench/numa.c:1161:6: error: format ‘%lx’ expects argument of t'long unsigned int’, but argument 5 has type ‘u64’ [-Werror=format] > >This patch fixs these two warnings. > >Signed-off-by: Wei Yang >--- > tools/perf/bench/numa.c | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >diff --git a/tools/perf/bench/numa.c b/tools/perf/bench/numa.c >index 30d1c32..a73c4ed 100644 >--- a/tools/perf/bench/numa.c >+++ b/tools/perf/bench/numa.c >@@ -1110,7 +1110,7 @@ static void *worker_thread(void *__tdata) > /* Check whether our max runtime timed out: */ > if (g->p.nr_secs) { > timersub(&stop, &start0, &diff); >- if (diff.tv_sec >= g->p.nr_secs) { >+ if (diff.tv_sec >= (time_t)g->p.nr_secs) { > g->stop_work = true; > break; > } >@@ -1157,7 +1157,7 @@ static void *worker_thread(void *__tdata) > runtime_ns_max += diff.tv_usec * 1000; > > if (details >= 0) { >- printf(" #%2d / %2d: %14.2lf nsecs/op [val: %016lx]\n", >+ printf(" #%2d / %2d: %14.2lf nsecs/op [val: %016"PRIu64"]\n", > process_nr, thread_nr, runtime_ns_max / bytes_done, val); > } > fflush(stdout); >-- >1.7.5.4 -- Richard Yang Help you, Help me -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/