[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdRwuc5ZL-80=HBgUxHsuZ-MvMRBJxRQuTo8Bz9=RjxYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 20:42:23 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: wmi: Fix printing info about WDG structure
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 08:16 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:49:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com> wrote:
>> > > On Saturday 27 May 2017 15:33:14 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > > > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > Okay, got it. But on your opinion does it make sense to do
>> > > >
>> > > > pr_info("\tobject_id: %2pE\n", g->object_id);
>> > > >
>> > > > instead?
>> > > >
>> > > > For ASCII it will go as is previously, otherwise escaping would be
>> > > > done.
>> > >
>> > > Both is OK for me. Do you want to send a new patch with %2pE?
>> >
>> > To me it looks slightly cleaner.
>>
>> I don't want to let this one fall through the cracks. Pali, is a new one coming?
>
> Perhaps
> pr_info("\t%*pE\n", (int)sizeof(g->object_id), g->object_id);
It will print some noisy characters as far as I understood the initial
intention.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists