Re: [patch 1/1] dm: fix printk warnings about whether %lu/%Lu is right for sector_t

[Paolo Giarrusso <blaisorblade_personal@yahoo.it>]

On Wednesday 20 October 2004 00:52, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 12:12:39PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >  > I would prefer that SECTOR_FORMAT be removed altogether.
> >  >
> >  > The industry-standard way of printing a sector_t is:
> >  > 	printk("%llu", (unsigned long long)sector);
> >
> >  What about reading a sector_t with sscanf, which looks like the
> >  reason for the existence of SECTOR_FORMAT?
>
> I'm not sure that it has arisen.  I'd do:

> 	unsigned long long temp;
> 	sector_t sector;
>
> 	sscanf(buf, "%llu", &temp);
> 	sector = temp;

It is already meaningless, IMHO, in this short example. But when you have such 
code:

        if (sscanf(argv[2], SECTOR_FORMAT, &cc->iv_offset) != 1) {
                ti->error = PFX "Invalid iv_offset sector";
                goto bad4;
        }

        if (sscanf(argv[4], SECTOR_FORMAT, &cc->start) != 1) {
                ti->error = PFX "Invalid device sector";
                goto bad4;
        }

it becomes even uglier.

Why cannot we simply define the macro in linux/types.h and go along? There is 
no reason at all for arch-dependent definition of this macro; we can handle 
CONFIG_LBD in arch-independent code. In fact, it's what I'm doing.

I'm resending the patch, removing altogether HAVE_SECTOR_T and anything in 
arch-code referring to that. For h8300, I'm unconditionally defining 
CONFIG_LBD in Kconfig.

An even better road would would be to use always a "unsigned long long" for 
64-bit sector_t even on 64-bit archs.

Is there any reason for having u/s64 being "(unsigned) long" instead of 
"(unsigned) long long"? I.e., must we cope with braindead gcc? If not, this 
should be fixed, to avoid even other such problems.

Bye
-- 
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729