On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 10:50 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 16:47 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > Recently I have noticed too many users of struct rtc_time that > > printing > > its content field by field. > > > > In this series I introduce %pt[dt][rv] specifier to make life a bit > > easier. > > Hey Andy. > > I just saw a patch with a printk for rtc time from Mark Salyzyn. > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/18/885 Same! > Any idea if you want to push this extension? Yes, just really lack of time for everything. I like the idea to make it conditional (config BLABLABLA). It will address some comments about footprint for no users. > I like the concept and still think it could be extended a bit more. > > from: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/8/1134 > > My preference would be for %pt[type]<output style> > where <type> is mandatory and could be: > > r for struct rtc_time > 6 for time64_t > k for ktime_t > T for struct timespec64 > etc I dunno about this. However, I like this more than do conversion in each case where input reference has different type. > and <output style> has an unspecified default of > YYYY-MM-DD:hh:mm:ss I'm against this, sorry. Too many variations for almost no use (users). > Perhaps use the "date" formats without the leading > % uses for <output style> for additional styles. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy
