On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 08:45:31PM +0530, Aditya Garg wrote: > On 22-04-2025 04:02 pm, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 12:16, Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
... > > I am not against h/n in se, but I am against bad/confusing naming. > > The big question is: should it print > > (A) the value in network byte order, or > > (B) the reverse of host byte order? > > > > If the answer is (A), I see no real reason to have %p4n, as %p4b prints > > the exact same thing. Moreover, it leaves us without a portable > > way to print values in reverse without the caller doing an explicit > > __swab32() (which is not compatible with the %p pass-by-pointer > > calling convention). > > > > If the answer is (B), "%p4n using network byte order" is bad/confusing > > naming. > > The answer is definitely (B). As far as bad/confusing naming is concerned, > I'll let vsprintf maintainers decide. As far as usage is concerned, %p4cl > is used in appletbdrm and %p4ch is used in to be upstreamed soon smc driver > by Asahi Linux. Can it use %p4cb? Or in another word, why does it require "host" representation? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
