Re: [PATCH 4/5 v2] x86 boot: show pfn addresses in hex not decimal in some kernel info printks

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 8:19 am

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Johannes Berg wrote:

You don't even have to go that esoteric.

Just printing things like "sector_t" or "u64" is painful, because the 
exact type depends on config options and/or architecture.


For special things, I do think we should extend the format more, and 
forget about single-character names. It would be lovely to do them as
%[mac], %[u64], %[symbol] or similar. Because once you don't rely on gcc 
checking the string, you can do it.

The problem is that right now we absolutely _do_ rely on gcc checking the 
string, and as such we're forced to use standard patterns, and standard 
patterns _only_. And that means that %M isn't an option, but also that if 
we want symbolic names we'd have to use %p, and not some extension.

But once you drop the 'standard patterns' requirement, I do think you 
should drop it _entirely_, and not just extend it with some pissant 
single-character unreadable mess.

				Linus
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 1/5 v2] x86 boot: e820 code indentation fix, Paul Jackson, (Sun Jun 22, 7:21 am)
Re: [PATCH 4/5 v2] x86 boot: show pfn addresses in hex not ..., Linus Torvalds, (Wed Jun 25, 8:19 am)
Re: [PATCH 4/5 v2] x86 boot: show pfn addresses in hex not ..., Alexander van Heukelum, (Mon Jun 30, 12:58 am)