Re: [PATCH 00/14] Fix wrong %pF and %pS printk format specifier usages

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

Hi,

On (09/08/17 22:49), Helge Deller wrote:
[..]
> Sergey, I'm sure there is a way how you can get it somehow to work the way
> you describe above, but even then nobody can guarantee you that it
> will work in 100% of the cases.
> 
> It's somehow like "we have %lu and %c specifiers, and it's basically 
> the same, so let's try to figure out at runtime which one should be
> used based on analysis of what was given as argument".
> It may work somehow, but not always.
> 
> What about the idea of a %luS specifier (or something other) ?

the idea is to have less format specifiers ;)

%pF/%pf is a subtle ABI detail, which made it to API.

I'm OK to keep %pf/%pF, if we won't be able to improve %ps/%pS.
otherwise, I'd prefer to get rid of it.

	-ss