On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/06/2017 at 17:55:12 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andy Shevchenko >> > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> There are users which print time and date represented by content of >> >> struct rtc_time in human readable format. >> >> >> >> Instead of open coding that each time introduce %pt[dt][rv] specifier. >> > >> > I really like the idea, and the implementation seems fine for this use case, but >> > before we reserve %pt for rtc_time, could we discuss whether we want >> > that for printing struct tm, struct timespec64, time64_t or ktime_t instead? >> >> How many users? For struct tm it's somelike 4 (which want to print its content). >> >> > I can see good reasons for pretty-printing any of them, but the namespace for >> > format strings is rather limited. >> > >> > struct rtc_time is almost the same as struct tm (the former has one extra >> > member), so maybe we can actually define them to be the same and >> > use one format string for both? >> >> The reason I decide to drop struct tm for now due to they are not >> compatible and I have got an interesting bugs. >> Verify tm_year member carefully. >> > > I understand this may not fit your debugging needs but what about pretty > printing time64_t and using rtc_tm_to_time64? There are two downsides as I can see: 1) conversion to and from just for that; 2) if you look closer to the patches rtc-* you may find cases where wday is also printed so, struct rtc_time still will be in use. So, I would go not to convert if there is no strong reason to do. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
