On 08/06/2017 at 17:55:12 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > >> There are users which print time and date represented by content of > >> struct rtc_time in human readable format. > >> > >> Instead of open coding that each time introduce %pt[dt][rv] specifier. > > > > I really like the idea, and the implementation seems fine for this use > > case, but > > before we reserve %pt for rtc_time, could we discuss whether we want > > that for printing struct tm, struct timespec64, time64_t or ktime_t instead? > > How many users? For struct tm it's somelike 4 (which want to print its > content). > > > I can see good reasons for pretty-printing any of them, but the namespace > > for > > format strings is rather limited. > > > > struct rtc_time is almost the same as struct tm (the former has one extra > > member), so maybe we can actually define them to be the same and > > use one format string for both? > > The reason I decide to drop struct tm for now due to they are not > compatible and I have got an interesting bugs. > Verify tm_year member carefully. >
I understand this may not fit your debugging needs but what about pretty printing time64_t and using rtc_tm_to_time64? -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
