[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f039631b-8a90-48fc-c80f-1160628469a9@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:27:34 +0100
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] printf: add support for %de
On 20/01/2020 10.32, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:57 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>
>> this is an reiteration of my patch from some time ago that introduced
>> %dE with the same semantic. Back then this resulted in the support for
>> %pe which was less contentious.
>>
>
>> I still consider %de (now with a small 'e' to match %pe) useful.
>
> Please, don't spread the extensions over the standard specifiers. The
> %p* extensions are enough for my opinion.
> NAK.
>
As I think I already mentioned (and what led me to do the %pe), I'm with
Andy and Joe here, I don't think modifying the behaviour of stuff other
than %p is a good idea - especially not when it's only about saving a
few characters to avoid the ERR_PTR() wrapping.
Rasmus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists