[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3936164c5bbd978933720bc61e509a6b3ff16c14.camel@perches.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 19:49:24 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] vsprintf/Documentation: Add X to %*ph extension to
output upper case hex
On Fri, 2021-08-27 at 11:49 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 01:08:10AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-08-27 at 10:48 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:43:01AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > A few sysfs output uses of hex arrays are uppercase and are nominally ABI.
> > > >
> > > > Add a mechanism to the existing vsprintf %*ph hex output extension to
> > > > support upper case hex output.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > + The preferred output is lowercase
> > > > %*ph 00 01 02 ... 3f
> > > > %*phC 00:01:02: ... :3f
> > > > %*phD 00-01-02- ... -3f
> > > > %*phN 000102 ... 3f
> > > > + Formats with X are uppercase, used for backwards compatibility
> > > > + %*phX 00 01 02 ... 3F
> > > > + %*phCX 00:01:02: ... :3F
> > > > + %*phDX 00-01-02- ... -3F
> > > > + %*phNX 000102 ... 3F
> > >
> > > Why not using %*pH...?
> >
> > I find X more intelligible.
> >
> > > > + char locase = 0x20; /* ASCII OR'd for lower case see: number() */
> > >
> > > If you use h vs H, you may derive this from (fmt[...] & SMALL).
> >
> > It's not necessary to use any more of the rather limited vsprintf
> > extension namespace.
>
> I understand your concern, but %*ph is quite widely used (I guess top 1 or 2
> among all %p extensions),
Cumulatively 3rd after %pM and %pOF
> its performance degradation with your code may affect
> a lot of other users and hence a kernel as a whole.
>
> So, that's why my proposal stays.
Knock yourself out.
> Of course you may provide a benchmark (btw, where are the test cases for this?)
You are welcome to provide both test cases and benchmarks.
I find the whole thing rather dull.
> for yours and mine variant and we will see if it makes sense to optimize.
It doesn't. Anyone thinking there is a required printf/vsprintf
optimization in the kernel is decidedly barking up the wrong tree.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists