On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Jani, > > On Thursday 10 Nov 2016 12:30:09 Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> > The issue here is that printk can't format the fourcc as a string by >> > itself. There's a bunch of places in the kernel where a similar >> > formatting problem occurs. In a few occasions it has been solved by >> > extending printk with additional format specifiers (such as for MAC/IP >> > addresses, GUIDs, various kind of device names, ...). DRM fourccs are >> > probably too DRM specific to be worth a format specifier, but I wonder >> > whether we could introduce a new specifier that takes a function pointer >> > as a formatting helper. Another similarly crazy option would be a format >> > specifier for strings that would free the passed pointer after printing >> > it. >> >> I think there are too many non-standard format specifiers already. I >> can't review the non-standard format strings without looking at >> Documentation/prink-formats.txt first. The formatting hook would be a >> generic alternative, but that's more than a little scary from the >> security standpoint. And what if the hook has to allocate memory? Can't >> do that in atomic contexts. > > There are lots of details to sort out obviously and I don't have an answer to > all questions yet. I think it would be worth researching this, as the problem > isn't specific to DRM/KMS. That's easy to agree to; as much as you didn't mean to shoot down the patch, I didn't mean to shoot down your idea! :) BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
