linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: replace u64 with phys_addr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180704092042.GC458@jagdpanzerIV>
Date:   Wed, 4 Jul 2018 18:20:42 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: replace u64 with phys_addr_t where
 appropriate

On (07/04/18 02:04), Joe Perches wrote:
> > Sorry, NACK on lib/vsprintf.c part
> > 
> > I definitely didn't want to do this tree-wide pf->ps conversion when
> > I introduced my patch set. pf/pF should have never existed, true,
> > but I think we must support pf/pF in vsprintf(). Simply because it
> > has been around for *far* too long.
> 
> And?  checkpatch warns about %p[Ff] uses.
> 
> > People tend to develop "habits",
> > you know, I'm quite sure ppc/hppa/etc folks still do [and will] use
> > pf/pF occasionally.
> 
> There's this saying about habits made to be broken.
> This is one of those habits.
> 
> I'd expect more people probably get the %pS or %ps wrong
> than use %pF.
> 
> And most people probably look for examples in code and
> copy instead of thinking what's correct, so removing old
> and deprecated uses from existing code is a good thing.

Well, I don't NACK the patch, I just want to keep pf/pF in vsprintf(),
that's it. Yes, checkpatch warns about pf/pF uses, becuase we don't want
any new pf/pF in the code - it's rather confusing to have both pf/pF and
ps/pS -- but I don't necessarily see why would we want to mess up with
parisc/hppa/ia64 people using pf/pF for debugging purposes, etc. I'm not
married to pf/pF, if you guys insist on complete removal of pf/pF then so
be it.

	-ss