[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-04 11:21    [W:0.042 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site