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/ 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? If so, it might be reasonable to change the tooling there instead.
