On Thu, Jun 08 2017, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Alexandre Belloni
> <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 08/06/2017 at 20:57:05 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Alexandre Belloni
>>> <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> > 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;
>>
>> Those are almost all debug messages, I would be fine with that.
>
> Yeah, but the problem is to pass the reference. All dances around will
> uglify the code.
> (Obviously we can't pass timespec64/time64_t or anything longer than
> 32 bits as is in %p extension)
>
I like that this gets rid of some mm/dd/yy and other more or less random
format and ends up standardizing yyyy-mm-dd HH:MM:SS. However, I do
think %pt should take either ktime_t or timespec64 (obviously by
reference), with fx these options
[ir] ISO (yyyy-mm-dd HH:MM:SS) or raw (seconds since epoch)
[n] append nanoseconds (.%09ld).
Please don't give people the option of eliding either the time or the
date; I've spent too much time dealing with syslog files that don't
include the year in the timestamps.
Getting a timespec64* or ktime_t* from <something else> is not that
bad. There's the compound literal option
#define rtc_tm2timespec64p(tm) \
(&(struct timespec64){ .tv_sec = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm), .tv_nsec = 0 })
printk("%pt", rtc_tm2timespec64p(tm))
or the two-extra-lines per call-site
struct timespec64 ts;
rtc_tm2time64(tm, &ts)
printk("%pt", &ts)
Rasmus
