Re: [PATCH net-next 8/9] net: hns3: cleanup some print format warning

[tanhuazhong <tanhuazhong@huawei.com>]

On 2019/10/31 19:53, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-10-31 at 19:23 +0800, Huazhong Tan wrote:
>> From: Guojia Liao <liaoguojia@huawei.com>
>>
>> Using '%d' for printing type unsigned int or '%u' for
>> type int would cause static tools to give false warnings,
>> so this patch cleanups this warning by using the suitable
>> format specifier of the type of variable.
>>
>> BTW, modifies the type of some variables and macro to
>> synchronize with their usage.
> 
> What tool is this?

Sorry, it is my mistake, as confirmed, this patch is
advised by internal code review.

> 
> I think this static warning is excessive as macro
> defines with a small positive number are common
> 

yes, it seems ok.
The reason we do this modification is that
printing resp_data_len with '%u' and printing
HCLGE_MBX_MAX_RESP_DATA_SIZE with '%d' seems a little odd.

  	if (resp_data_len > HCLGE_MBX_MAX_RESP_DATA_SIZE) {
  		dev_err(&hdev->pdev->dev,
-			"PF fail to gen resp to VF len %d exceeds max len %d\n",
+			"PF fail to gen resp to VF len %u exceeds max len %u\n",
  			resp_data_len,
  			HCLGE_MBX_MAX_RESP_DATA_SIZE);

Thanks for your suggestion.

>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hclge_mbx.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hclge_mbx.h
> []
>> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ enum hclge_mbx_vlan_cfg_subcode {
>>   };
>>   
>>   #define HCLGE_MBX_MAX_MSG_SIZE	16
>> -#define HCLGE_MBX_MAX_RESP_DATA_SIZE	8
>> +#define HCLGE_MBX_MAX_RESP_DATA_SIZE	8U
>>   #define HCLGE_MBX_RING_MAP_BASIC_MSG_NUM	3
>>   #define HCLGE_MBX_RING_NODE_VARIABLE_NUM	3
> 
> like this one
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3_debugfs.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3_debugfs.c
> []
>> @@ -57,68 +57,68 @@ static int hns3_dbg_queue_info(struct hnae3_handle *h,
>>   					   HNS3_RING_RX_RING_BASEADDR_H_REG);
>>   		base_add_l = readl_relaxed(ring->tqp->io_base +
>>   					   HNS3_RING_RX_RING_BASEADDR_L_REG);
>> -		dev_info(&h->pdev->dev, "RX(%d) BASE ADD: 0x%08x%08x\n", i,
>> +		dev_info(&h->pdev->dev, "RX(%u) BASE ADD: 0x%08x%08x\n", i,
> 
> so using %d is correct enough.
> 
> 
> 
> .
>