On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 16:53 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Fri 2018-03-16 20:19:35, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 16:26 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > On Thu 2018-03-15 15:09:03, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > I still think that printing a hex value of the error code is > > > > much > > > > better > > > > than some odd "(efault)". > > > > > > Do you mean (err:0e)? Google gives rather confusing answers for > > > this. > > > > More like "(0xHHHH)" (we have already more than 512 error code > > numbers. > > Hmm, I have never seen the error code in this form. We have limited space to print it and error numbers currently can be up to 0xfff (4095). So, I have no better idea how to squeeze them while thinking that "(efault)" is much harder to parse in case of error pointer. > Also google gives > rather confusing results when searching, for example for "(0x000E)". It's not primarily for google, though yeah, people would google for error messages... Another question is what the format: decimal versus hex for errors. Maybe just "(-DDDDD)"? -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy
