On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 12:57 -0700, Mark Salyzyn wrote: > On 07/18/2017 10:50 AM, 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 > > > > Any idea if you want to push this extension? > > > > 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 > > > > and <output style> has an unspecified default of > > YYYY-MM-DD:hh:mm:ss > > > > Perhaps use the "date" formats without the leading > > % uses for <output style> for additional styles. > > > > YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss.nnnnnnnnn ? As a separate modifier, yes. See my answer to subthread in patch 4. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy
