Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 5 Jun 2017 08:30:38 -0700 | From | Stephen Hemminger <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] x86/hyper-v: stash the max number of virtual/logical processor |
| |
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:24:27 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 2017 20:43:58 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Max virtual processor will be needed for 'extended' hypercalls supporting > > > more than 64 vCPUs. While on it, unify on 'Hyper-V' in mshyperv.c as we > > > currently have a mix, report acquired misc features as well. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> > > > Acked-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com> > > > Tested-by: Simon Xiao <sixiao@microsoft.com> > > > Tested-by: Srikanth Myakam <v-srm@microsoft.com> > > > > > + u32 max_vp_index; > > > + u32 max_lp_index; > > > > > + pr_info("Hyper-V: max %d virtual processors, %d logical processors\n", > > > + ms_hyperv.max_vp_index, ms_hyperv.max_lp_index); > > > > And surprisingly no-one from the above list did not get a warning?!
Gcc 6.3 does not warn when %d is used on unsigned values.
> Begs to question how many other warnings are they ignoring? None.
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |