[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a828ba39477f1cfb8933b0e6cc704dfa6c315bcc.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:10:56 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@...ine-koenig.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vsprintf: introduce %dE for error constants
On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 23:35 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Joe,
>
> On 8/27/19 11:22 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 23:12 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > The new format specifier %dE introduced with this patch pretty-prints
> > > the typical negative error values. So
> > >
> > > pr_info("probing failed (%dE)\n", ret);
> > >
> > > yields
> > >
> > > probing failed (EIO)
> > >
> > > if ret holds -EIO. This is easier to understand than the for now common
> > >
> > > probing failed (-5)
> >
> > I suggest using both outputs like '-5 -EIO'
> > rather than a single string
>
> I like it the way it is implemented as it is more flexible. If you want
> to see both, you can still do
>
> pr_info("probing failed (%d %dE)\n", ret, ret);
>
> and people (like me) who think that giving only EIO can still do just that.
<shrug> Up to you. Just a suggestion.
btw:
The test for %<dixu>E (FORMAT_TYPE_INT)
should probably include a test for
(spec->flags & SIGN)
so that it only is used for %d and %i and
disregarded for %x and %u
Powered by blists - more mailing lists