[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1484219915.2133.76.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:18:35 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
arnd.bergmann@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] lib/vsnprintf: Add %par specifier for sake of
consistency
On Wed, 2017-01-11 at 16:59 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-01-11 at 15:57 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:28:07 +0200 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenk
> > o@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > While resource_size_t is repeating phys_addr_t, allocate %par
> > > specifier for
> > > that type for sake of consistency.
> > >
> >
> > I'm struggling to see the value in this. A more detailed changelog
> > would help, explaining why you think the kernel would benefit from
> > this.
> >
> > Are there callsites which should be converted? If so, a patch which
> > does at least some of those would be helpful.
>
> A resource_size_t isn't a different size than a phys_addr_t.
> Not so far anyway.
Yeah, I know.
> $ git grep typedef.*resource_size_t include
> include/linux/types.h:typedef phys_addr_t resource_size_t;
>
> Is there an arch that needs a different size?
> If not, why add another case?
> Just to make the kernel larger?
Andrew, Joe, thanks for your comments. That's what I asked for in v1.
Just drop the patch. I got my answers.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists