On 2026-08-27 11:51:00 [+0200], Petr Mladek wrote: > > I think that it is a matter of taste. I could understand that > "(unknown)" might look more obvious to some people. > > I would still prefer the hashed pointer. It make it consistent with > %p handling. Both print addresses in this case.
For %p expect a pointer, for %pS you expect a name. > The motivation for the hash in %p is that it is slightly more useful > than a static string, e.g. "(address)" or "(pointer)". The hash allows > to match the same addresses. It is not 100% reliable but better > than nothing. but is this helpful? > Also the hash makes it more obvious the connection with "no_hash_pointer" > option. Assuming you know about the no_hash_pointer. And then you get a randomized pointer. Enabling kallsym would be a _bigger_ help than rebooting with no_hash_pointer. > IMHO, the only drawback is that people might confuse the hash with > a real value. But it is easier on 64-bit systems because the higher > 32-bits are zeros. That, too. Do you continue to insist on this hashed pointer output here? > Best Regards, > Petr Sebastian
