On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 20:17:45 -0400 Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > More specific please. > > Steve, look at the man page for snprintf if you don't see what I mean. > This discussion has become entirely too tedious, and your _only_ > contribution to the discussion on pretty-printers has been "why isn't > this using this thing I made?". No, my response is, why should we replace something that is working just fine? The burden is on you. For this to get accepted you have to show why a risk of regression in the Linux kernel is worth the update. We don't just say "hey this is better, take it!". That's not how this works. There needs to be real needs to be met. > > You haven't been contributing to the discussion, you haven't been > helping figure out what the APIs, helpers, data structures should look > like, IOW _actually_ building something that could serve as a low level > string formatting library. What exactly is it that is better. In stead of yelling about what I haven't done, tell me what you plan on doing that will make *our* lives better. Code is "pulled" not "pushed". If all you can do is push, then you are going to end up being quite disappointed. What exactly is the use case here? > > I get that you're busy - but look, we all are, and this patch series has > already been set back what, a month and a half while I was waiting on you. Sorry, but I did warn you. I did start a new job and then I had several conferences that I was writing code to present. That is, the things I was talking about wasn't even finished yet. So those were very *hard* deadlines (on top of my day job). I told you upfront that it may be months before I can look at it. I was fully transparent. > > I've got the tests now, I'll CC you when v5 is posted. And I expect you to have an explanation on why this is worth the effort. -- Steve
