On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 28 2015, Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Is there any aspect of the passed-through printf_spec which isn't >> overridden in xnumber? The users are/will be various %p extensions, >> which probably means that no-one passes a non-default precision (gcc >> complains about %.*p), and the remaining possible flags (PLUS, LEFT, >> SPACE) are useless and/or impossible to pass to %p > > Actually, LEFT can be passed to %p (or get set by passing a negative > field width via %*p), which would be actively harmful: When LEFT is set, > number() explicitly removes the ZEROPAD flag, so we'd get "0xabcdef " > instead of "0x00abcdef".
My opinion we have to establish strict rules what we print in case of prefixed pointer (when #ifdef is false in some cases, e.g. struct clk) or fixed type values, such as phys_addr_t. I mean to always have a maximum width for the type on the running architecture. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
