On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 21:47:27 +0200
Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > Very interesting!
> >
> > This code:
> > void smp_cpus_done() {
> > printk("Called from %pF.\n", smp_cpus_done);
> > printk("Called from %pf.\n", smp_cpus_done);
> > printk("Called in %pS.\n", __func__);
> > printk("Called in %ps.\n", __func__);
> > printk("Called in %pF.\n", __func__);
> > printk("Called in %pf.\n", __func__);
> >
> > gives:
> > Called from smp_cpus_done+0x0/0x1b8.
> > Called from smp_cpus_done.
> > Called in __func__.28197+0x0/0x20.
> > Called in __func__.28197.
> > Called in 0x5041524953433332.
> > Called in 0x5041524953433332.
> >
> > So, the correct usage is:
> > printk("Called in %pS.\n", __func__);
>
> I'm wrong.
> The correct usage would be:
> printk("Called in %s.\n", __func__);
>
> __func__ is just a pointer to a string.
OK, I'm still on vacation :-/
Yeah, I was looking for usages of %pF, and came across this:
pr_warn("%s: NULL omap_sr from %pF\n",
__func__, (void *)_RET_IP_);
And not noticing the first "%s" :-p
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
