On Mon 2021-02-15 16:39:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > +Cc: Sakari and printk people > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 4:28 PM Christian König > <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am 15.02.21 um 15:21 schrieb Andy Shevchenko: > > > We have already few similar implementation and a lot of code that can benefit > > > of the yesno() helper. Consolidate yesno() helpers under string.h hood. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Looks like a good idea to me, feel free to add an Acked-by: Christian > > König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> to the series. > > Thanks. > > > But looking at the use cases for this, wouldn't it make more sense to > > teach kprintf some new format modifier for this? > > As a next step? IIRC Sakari has at some point the series converted > yesno and Co. to something which I don't remember the details of. > > Guys, what do you think? Honestly, I think that yesno() is much easier to understand than %py. And %py[DOY] looks really scary. It has been suggested at https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YCqaNnr7ynRydczE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/#t Yes, enabledisable() is hard to parse but it is still self-explaining and can be found easily by cscope. On the contrary, %pyD will likely print some python code and it is not clear if it would be compatible with v3. I am just kidding but you get the picture. Best Regards, Petr _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
