On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 08:38 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On 2018-02-21 00:55, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 23:43 +0200, Andy Shevchenko 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 %ptR[dt][rv] > > > specifier. > > > > > > Note, users have to select PRINTK_PEXT_TIMEDATE option in a > > > Kconfig. > > > > Not sure this is a great option. > > Not just the name, the need to select it. > > Bikeshedding first: If you do keep the config option, please use > PRINTF, > not PRINTK - vsprintf can be and is used by lots of code other than > printk. OK. > Well, on the one hand, I like to reduce the size of the kernel when > possible and ideally make all new functionality guarded by config > options, but OTOH, how much does compiling out the datetime formatters > really save? https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all/2017-June/034950.html I understand that half a year time allows us to increase kernel text size by 750+ bytes unconditionally. I would really like to not use any option. > Also, I agree with Joe's concern about the need to select > it. So, what exactly you are proposing? > Maybe if we had a gcc plugin that did %pFOO validation it could also > warn about %pBAR being used without a corresponding config option > being > set. But we don't have that currently... We have not, so, it's out of scope. If it's a big impediment, then I'm not the guy who will do the job. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy
