On 26.07.2024 16:52, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> It's sadically misleading to show an error without letters and expect
> the dmesg reader to understand it's in hex. The patch adds a 0x prefix
> to all hex numbers that don't already have it.
Just a few remarks: First I agree with Paul here. Imo ...
On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 4:11 PM BST, Paul Durrant wrote:
> On 26/07/2024 15:52, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> > It's sadically misleading to show an error without letters and expect
> > the dmesg reader to understand it's in hex.
>
> That depends on who's doing the reading.
>
> > The patch adds a 0x
On 26/07/2024 15:52, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
It's sadically misleading to show an error without letters and expect
the dmesg reader to understand it's in hex.
That depends on who's doing the reading.
The patch adds a 0x prefix
to all hex numbers that don't already have it.
On the one
It's sadically misleading to show an error without letters and expect
the dmesg reader to understand it's in hex. The patch adds a 0x prefix
to all hex numbers that don't already have it.
On the one instance in which a boolean is printed as an integer, print
it as a decimal integer instead so
