On (23/04/03 19:46), Jaewon Kim wrote: > I've just changed %09lx to %09pK on my driver code to hide the address, but I > faced compiler error. The %9pK without 0 worked. > > Is there restriction on %pK which does now allow %0 ? I've wondered whether I > did wrong or it is a printk problem. I don't think this is %pK limitation. %p should not take modification flags. E.g. %3p doesn't make sense, we still should print the entire pointer.
