Re: Correct way to format spufs file output.
- From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:38:50 +0200
On Friday 20 October 2006 15:54, Dwayne Grant McConnell wrote:
I think %0xllx is the way to go. I would even advocate changing
signal1_type and signal2_type unless it is actually too dangerous.
There is absolutely no reason why these should be hexadecimal, they
are basically implementing a bool.
Is there even a case where changing from %llu to %0xllx would break things?
Perhaps with the combination of a old library with a new kernel?
Right, a library or some script that has been written assuming there
is no leading 0x.
Arnd <><
-
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: [Cbe-oss-dev] Correct way to format spufs file output.
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
- Re: Correct way to format spufs file output.
- From: Dwayne Grant McConnell
- Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] Correct way to format spufs file output.
- References:
- Re: Correct way to format spufs file output.
- From: Arnd Bergmann
- Re: Correct way to format spufs file output.
- From: Dwayne Grant McConnell
- Re: Correct way to format spufs file output.
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] Reintroduce NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES for powerpc
- Next by Date: Re: Correct way to format spufs file output.
- Previous by thread: Re: Correct way to format spufs file output.
- Next by thread: Re: Correct way to format spufs file output.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
