On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote: > > > I don't think %#p is valid so it > > > shouldn't have been set by #. > > > > Huh? As recently as last Wednesday you pointed me at the specific commit > > from Grant that made it valid (GCC format complaints aside). > > Those gcc complaints are precisely the thing > that makes it invalid.
So enforce that in code then, clear the SPECIAL flag where appropriate and do not try to handle it in one place while leaving other ones to behave randomly (i.e. a supposedly fixed field width varies depending on the two uppermost digits). Please note that it's only your proposed change that introduces that randomness, right now code does what's supposed and documented to, except a bit inconsistently. > I believe you're tilting at windmills. > > Hey, it works sometimes. Knock yourself out. I pointed out an inconsistency with the intent to propose a fix once a consensus have been reached, one way or another. And I think shifting the inconsistency to a different place, which is what your proposal does, isn't really a complete solution, although I do recognise the improvement. Maciej -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
