Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] string: Consolidate yesno() helpers under string.h hood

[Petr Mladek]

On Mon 2021-02-15 16:39:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> +Cc: Sakari and printk people
> 
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 4:28 PM Christian König
> <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Am 15.02.21 um 15:21 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> > > We have already few similar implementation and a lot of code that can benefit
> > > of the yesno() helper.  Consolidate yesno() helpers under string.h hood.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Looks like a good idea to me, feel free to add an Acked-by: Christian
> > König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> to the series.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > But looking at the use cases for this, wouldn't it make more sense to
> > teach kprintf some new format modifier for this?
> 
> As a next step? IIRC Sakari has at some point the series converted
> yesno and Co. to something which I don't remember the details of.
> 
> Guys, what do you think?

Honestly, I think that yesno() is much easier to understand than %py.
And %py[DOY] looks really scary. It has been suggested at
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YCqaNnr7ynRydczE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/#t

Yes, enabledisable() is hard to parse but it is still self-explaining
and can be found easily by cscope. On the contrary, %pyD will likely
print some python code and it is not clear if it would be compatible
with v3. I am just kidding but you get the picture.

Best Regards,
Petr