On (07/04/18 18:20), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > 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. And just for the record - I think the reason why I didn't feel like doing a tree wide pf->ps conversion was that some of those pf->ps printk-s could end up in -stable backports [sure, no one backports print out changes, but a print out can be part of a fix which gets backported, etc]. So I just decided to stay away from this. IIRC. -ss
