Hi Jia-Ju,
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2018/6/1 5:13, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 18:42:48 +0200
>> Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Stephen Boyd <sb...@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>> Quoting Linus Torvalds (2018-05-31 07:32:10)
>>>>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:05 AM Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, we need to fix or remove this format. vsprintf-like functions
>>>>>> are called in any context and nobody expect that they might sleep.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ack. I guess the argument is that "%pCr" is rare, and none of *those*
>>>>> users may care, but I do think that doing things wrong as-is.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's too subtle to have to know you're in a particular locking context
>>>>> when you use a particular %p modifier.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. Removing the format seems to be the best approach. It looks like
>>>> only Geert has used it in the last few years and it hasn't been used
>>>> much otherwise.
>>>
>>> Indeed, just 3 users (the broadcom one isn't mine):
>>> drivers/clk/renesas/renesas-cpg-mssr.c
>>> drivers/thermal/broadcom/bcm2835_thermal.c
>>> drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c
>>>
>>> Alternatively, can we have a special version __clk_get_rate() that just
>>> returns clk->core->rate?
>>> Or would that be too inaccurate in the presence of CLK_GET_RATE_NOCACHE?
>>> The function could still return 0 in case the flag is set.
>>
>> If it's only used in three locations, I think it would be better to
>> simply remove it from vsprintf() and have the three callers call
>> clk_get_rate() directly.
OK, patches sent.
Thanks for reporting!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
