RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

[Roberts, William C]

<snip>
> > By "normal" I'm referring to things that call into pointer(), just
> > casually looking I see bstr_printf vsnprintf kvasprintf, which would
> > be easy enough to add
> >
> > > What do you think is missing?  sn?printf ? That's easy to add.
> >
> > The problem starts to get hairy when we think of how often folks roll
> > their own logging macros (see some small sampling at the end).
> >
> > I think we would want to add DEBUG DBG and sn?printf and maybe
> > consider dropping the \b on the regex so it's a bit more matchy but
> > still shouldn't end up matching on any ASM as you pointed out in the V2 nack.
> >
> > Ill break this down into:
> > 1. the patch as I know you'll take it, as you wrote it :-P 2. Adding
> > to the logging macros 3. exploring making it less matchy

-Kees and Andrew they likely don't care about the rest of this...

I have been working up a regex (I suck at these) to match C functions that have an invalid
%p format string and take arguments:
http://www.regexr.com/3f92k

This could be a way to get better coverage in a more generic approach, thoughts?