Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove support for deprecated %pf and %pF in vsprintf

[Sakari Ailus]

Hi Andy,

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:19:32PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:10:08PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:05:50PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 03:53:50PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Porting a patch
> > > > forward should have no issues either as checkpatch.pl has been complaining
> > > > of the use of %pf and %pF for a while now.
> > > 
> > > And that's exactly the reason why I think instead of removing warning on
> > > checkpatch, it makes sense to convert to an error for a while. People are
> > > tending read documentation on internet and thus might have outdated one. And
> > > yes, the compiler doesn't tell a thing about it.
> > > 
> > > P.S. Though, if majority of people will tell that I'm wrong, then it's okay to
> > > remove.
> > 
> > I wonder if you wrote this before seeing my other patchset.
> 
> Yes, I wrote it before seeing another series.
> 
> > What I think could be done is to warn of plain %pf (without following "w")
> > in checkpatch.pl, and %pf that is not followed by "w" in the kernel.
> > Although we didn't have such checks to begin with. The case is still a
> > little bit different as %pf used to be a valid conversion specifier whereas
> > %pO likely has never existed.
> > 
> > So, how about adding such checks in the other set? I can retain %p[fF] check
> > here, too, if you like.
> 
> Consistency tells me that the warning->error transformation in checkpatch.pl
> belongs this series.

All other invalid pointer conversion specifiers currently result into a
warning only. I see that as an orthogonal change to this set. I found
another issue in checkpatch.pl that may require some discussion; would you
be ok with addressing this in another set?

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx