On (07/04/18 02:04), Joe Perches wrote: > > 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. Well, I don't NACK the patch, I just want to keep pf/pF in vsprintf(), that's it. Yes, checkpatch warns about pf/pF uses, becuase we don't want any new pf/pF in the code - it's rather confusing to have both pf/pF and ps/pS -- but I don't necessarily see why would we want to mess up with parisc/hppa/ia64 people using pf/pF for debugging purposes, etc. I'm not married to pf/pF, if you guys insist on complete removal of pf/pF then so be it. -ss
