Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers
- From: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:54:41 +0100
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 01:16:56PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/sbus/char/uctrl.c b/drivers/sbus/char/uctrl.c
index ddc0681..b30372f 100644
--- a/drivers/sbus/char/uctrl.c
+++ b/drivers/sbus/char/uctrl.c
@@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ static int __init ts102_uctrl_init(void)
}
driver->regs->uctrl_intr = UCTRL_INTR_RXNE_REQ|UCTRL_INTR_RXNE_MSK;
- printk("uctrl: 0x%x (irq %d)\n", driver->regs, driver->irq);
+ printk("uctrl: 0x%p (irq %d)\n", driver->regs, driver->irq);
So what's the difference, except that %p will evaluate to (nil) or
(null) when the argument is 0 [this is the case with glibc]?
That would print 0x(nil).
%p will do no such thing in the kernel. As for the difference... %x
might happen to work on some architectures (where sizeof(void *)==sizeof(int)),
but it's not portable _and_ not right. %p is proper C for that...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers
- From: H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers
- References:
- [PATCH] use %p for pointers
- From: Al Viro
- Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers
- From: Jan Engelhardt
- [PATCH] use %p for pointers
- Prev by Date: Re: most users of msleep_interruptible are broken
- Next by Date: Re: thoughts on potential cleanup of semaphores?
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
