On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 11:42:06 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2019-09-10 at 14:26 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 10:18:44 -0700 > > Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > It's not just for the lastest kernel. We must maintain backward > > > > compatibility here too. If there use to be a usage of this, then we > > > > must keep it until the kernels are no longer used (perhaps 7 years?) > > > > > > That argues for not using "%pfw" at all for some number of years. > > > > > > Perhaps the '%pfw' should be '%pnfw' for 'name' and 'fwnode' > > > > -ENOCOMPREHENSION > > Perhaps you were not copied on the whole series. > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190910084707.18380-1-sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Thanks for the link. > > As I understand it, Sakair Ailus is proposing to > obsolete the current vsprintf "%p[Ff]" extension > and replace the usage with a new "%pfw" extension > which would emit the name of a pointer to "struct fwnode {}". > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190910084707.18380-10-sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > If reusing "%pf<foo>" is a problem, then instead > it might be reasonable to have a new "%pn<foo>" for > that use instead. > > btw: > > Is there kernel version information available in > trace output files? Not really. This is just a library that parses the trace event formats, there's not kernel versions passed in, but we do use variations in formats and such to determine what is supported. > > If so, it might be reasonable to change the tooling > there instead. > Actually, I think we could just look to see if "%pfw" is used and fall to that, otherwise consider it an older kernel and do it the original way. -- Steve
