[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180405141441.ocdzhuqezlkuitv4@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 16:14:41 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
"Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/9] vsprintf: Factor out %p[iI] handler as
ip_addr_string()
On Thu 2018-04-05 08:58:16, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (04/04/18 10:58), Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > Also it is better to warn about unknown specifier instead of falling
> > back to the %p behavior. It will help people to understand what is
> > going wrong. They expect the IP address and not a pointer anyway
> > in this situation.
> >
>
> May be. If one sees a hashed value where IP address/device name/etc
> was meant to be then it's already a sign that something is wrong.
> Those WARN_ONCE that you have added make things simpler, I agree.
> A quick question, what happens on !CONFIG_BUG systems (where we have
> no_printk() WARN)?
People with CONFIG_BUG disabled will miss much more important
warnings. IMHO, an unreported typo in printk format will be
one of their smallest problems.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists