[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] vsprintf: introduce %dE for error constants
Hello Petr,

On 8/30/19 11:06 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2019-08-29 19:39:45, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> On 8/29/19 11:09 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>>> On 29/08/2019 10.27, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> Hmm, what about already existing format strings conatining "%dE"?
>>>> Yes, I could find only one (drivers/staging/speakup/speakup_bns.c), but
>>>> nevertheless...
>>> Indeed, Uwe still needs to respond to how he wants to handle that. I
>> This is indeed bad and I didn't expect that. I just took a quick look
>> and this string is indeed used as sprintf format string.
> Hmm, it seems that solving this might be pretty tricky.

I thought about this and we could make it possible by some syntax. Such that

someint = 42
pr_info("%d}E\n", someint)



(I'm open to use a different "end-of-fmt-specifier" char, a } might
confuse source editors when highlighting matching braces. Maybe '#'?

This idea could be transferred to %p, too, which then lift the
limitation that some strings cannot easily be produced by printk et al.
(Of course this makes the format string parsing still more complicated
which I expect you won't like.) This would make it possible then to
adapt drivers/staging/speakup/speakup_bns.c before introducing the
format for error ints.

> I see this as a warning that we should not play with fire.
> There might be a reason why all format modifiers are put
> between % and the format identifier.

AFAIK they are put after the format specifier in the kernel to still be
able to benefit from the compiler's printf attribute.

>>> still prefer making it %pE, both because it's easier to convert integers
>>> to ERR_PTRs than having to worry about the type of PTR_ERR() being long
>>> and not int, and because alphanumerics after %p have been ignored for a
>>> long time (10 years?) whether or not those characters have been
>>> recognized as a %p extension, so nobody relies on %pE putting an E after
>>> the %p output. It also keeps the non-standard extensions in the same
>>> "namespace", so to speak.
>>> Oh, 'E' is taken, well, make it 'e' then.
>> I like having %pe to print error valued pointers. Then maybe we could
>> have both %de for ints and %pe for pointers. :-)
> I would prefer to avoid %pe. It would make sense only when the value
> really contains error id.

The same holds true for %dE. Something has to happen if an int is passed
that isn't an error code. I'm emitting it as is in my patch, the same
could be done for a pointer.

> It means that it has to be used as:
> if (IS_ERR(p)) {
> pr_warn(...);
> The error path might handle the error using PTR_ERR() also
> on other locations. Also PTR_ERR() will make it clear that we
> are trying to print the error code.

I suggest to postpone this until we have %dE. (But I consider using %de
instead as then if we later chose that %pe is a nice idea they can use
the same modifier.)

Best regards

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-30 17:47    [W:0.082 / U:3.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site