On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 05:35:51PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 04:57:58PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 04:46:12PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> > I think the proper solution would be to have actually
> >> > sensible conversion specifiers in the format string.
> >> > So instead of %<set of random characters> we'd have something
> >> > more like %{drm_crtc} (or whatever color you want to throw
> >> > on that particular bikeshed).
> >>
> >> Personally I suck at remembering even the standard printf conversion
> >> specifiers, let alone all the kernel extensions. I basically have to
> >> look them up every time. I'd really love some %{name} format for named
> >> pointer things. And indeed preferrably without the %p. Just %{name}.
> >
> > It will become something like %{name[:subextensions]}, where subextensions
> > is what we now have with different letters/numbers after %pX (X is a letter
> > which you proposed to have written as name AFAIU).
>
> Thanks, I appreciate it, a lot!
>
> But could you perhaps try to go with just clean %{name} only instead of
> adding [:subextensions] right away, please?
>
> I presume the suggestion comes from an implementation detail, and I
> guess it would be handy to reuse the current implementation for
> subextension.
>
> For example, %pb -> %{bitmap} and %pbl -> %{bitmap:l}. But really I
> think the better option would be for the latter to become, say,
> %{bitmap-list}. The goal here is to make them easy to remember and
> understand, without resorting to looking up the documentation!
I was also wondering if we should have some kind of namespace
thing in there. Eg. instead of %{drm_crtc} it could be something
like %{drm:crtc}. Then it would be clear which subsystem (when that
makes sense) "owns" that particular format. But I suppose using
the C foo_ namespacing rule would also work since it should already
be a thing for exported symbols anyway.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
