On (04/04/18 10:58), Petr Mladek wrote: > > Also it is better to warn about unknown specifier instead of falling > back to the %p behavior. It will help people to understand what is > going wrong. They expect the IP address and not a pointer anyway > in this situation. >
May be. If one sees a hashed value where IP address/device name/etc was meant to be then it's already a sign that something is wrong. Those WARN_ONCE that you have added make things simpler, I agree. A quick question, what happens on !CONFIG_BUG systems (where we have no_printk() WARN)? -ss