On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Rasmus Villemoes
> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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:
>
>>> 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),
>
> I will try to look in this direction.
sounds good.
>> 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.
>
> I understand that, but see above.
When we pretty-print a ktime_t, we probably want to leave out the high
fields as well, as this often refers to a time interval, e.g. a few seconds.
Even for absolute values, the start of ktime_t is usually not the 1970
epoch but system boot, so we may not necessarily want the higher
fields. I hoped to find some inspiration in the 'date' man page, which
contains a lot of formatting options, but it's hard to translate that into
a useful format string within the constraints of %p flags in printk.
Arnd
