On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 06:43:44PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > 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. Well, this is true for any printk that uses %p[sS]. There were plenty of those even when %pf and %ps were different... > -ss > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
