On Thu 2018-04-05 08:58:16, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > 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)?
People with CONFIG_BUG disabled will miss much more important warnings. IMHO, an unreported typo in printk format will be one of their smallest problems. Best Regards, Petr
