> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Linus > Torvalds > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:17 PM > To: Tobin C. Harding <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; KVM list <[email protected]>; > Linux Kernel Mailing List <[email protected]>; Kees Cook > <[email protected]>; Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>; Tycho > Andersen <[email protected]>; Roberts, William C > <[email protected]>; Tejun Heo <[email protected]>; Jordan Glover > <[email protected]>; Greg KH <[email protected]>; > Petr Mladek <[email protected]>; Joe Perches <[email protected]>; Ian > Campbell <[email protected]>; Sergey Senozhatsky > <[email protected]>; Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>; > Will Deacon <[email protected]>; Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>; > Chris Fries <[email protected]>; Dave Weinstein <[email protected]>; Daniel > Micay <[email protected]>; Djalal Harouni <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] add %pX specifier > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Tobin C. Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This patch is a softer version of Linus' suggestion because it does > > not change the behaviour of the %p specifier. I don't see the benefit > > in making such a breaking change without addressing the issue of %x (and I > don't the balls to right now). > > The thing is, this continues to have the exact same issue that %pK has > - because it is opt-in, effectively nobody will actually use it. > > That's why I would suggest that if we do this way, we really change %p and %pa > to use the hashed value, to convert *everybody*. And then people who have a > good reason to actually expose the pointer have to do the extra work and opt > out.
Yes we cannot make this opt in or there is really no point in doing it. %pK and mistakes got us here to this point. I see there is multiple threads, this getting really fun to follow. > > Linus
