On Wed, 2018-07-04 at 16:23 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (07/04/18 10:03), Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > %p[Ff] got deprecated by commit 04b8eb7a4ccd9ef9343e2720ccf2a5db8cfe2f67 > > > > > > I think it'd be simplest to just convert > > > all the %pF and %pf uses all at once. > > > > > > $ git grep --name-only "%p[Ff]" | \ > > > xargs sed -i -e 's/%pF/%pS/' -e 's/%pf/%ps/' > > > > > > and remove the appropriate Documentation bit. > > > > > > > Something like this: > > > > From 0d3e7cf494123c2640b9a892160d2e2430787004 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 09:55:50 +0300 > > Subject: [PATCH] treewide: retire '%pF/%pf' > > > > %p[Ff] got deprecated by commit 04b8eb7a4ccd9ef9343e2720ccf2a5db8cfe2f67 > > ("symbol lookup: introduce dereference_symbol_descriptor()") > > > > Replace their uses with %p[Ss] with > > > > $ git grep --name-only "%p[Ff]" | \ > > xargs sed -i -e 's/%pF/%pS/' -e 's/%pf/%ps/' > > > Sorry, NACK on lib/vsprintf.c part > > I definitely didn't want to do this tree-wide pf->ps conversion when > I introduced my patch set. pf/pF should have never existed, true, > but I think we must support pf/pF in vsprintf(). Simply because it > has been around for *far* too long. And? checkpatch warns about %p[Ff] uses. > People tend to develop "habits", > you know, I'm quite sure ppc/hppa/etc folks still do [and will] use > pf/pF occasionally. There's this saying about habits made to be broken. This is one of those habits. I'd expect more people probably get the %pS or %ps wrong than use %pF. And most people probably look for examples in code and copy instead of thinking what's correct, so removing old and deprecated uses from existing code is a good thing.