On Tue 2019-06-25 12:59:57, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Petr, > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 1:56 PM Petr Mladek <[email protected]> wrote: > > There are few printk formats that make sense only with two or more > > specifiers. Also some specifiers make sense only when a kernel feature > > is enabled. > > > > The handling of unknown specifiers is inconsistent and not helpful. > > Using WARN() looks like an overkill for this type of error. pr_warn() > > is not good either. It would by handled via printk_safe buffer and > > it might be hard to match it with the problematic string. > > > > A reasonable compromise seems to be writing the unknown format specifier > > into the original string with a question mark, for example (%pC?). > > It should be self-explaining enough. Note that it is in brackets > > to follow the (null) style. > > > > Note that it introduces a warning about that test_hashed() function > > is unused. It is going to be used again by a later patch. > > > > Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]> > > > --- a/lib/vsprintf.c > > +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c > > @@ -1706,7 +1712,7 @@ char *clock(char *buf, char *end, struct clk *clk, > > struct printf_spec spec, > > #ifdef CONFIG_COMMON_CLK > > return string(buf, end, __clk_get_name(clk), spec); > > #else > > - return ptr_to_id(buf, end, clk, spec); > > + return string_nocheck(buf, end, "(%pC?)", spec); > > What's the reason behind this change? This is not an error case, > but for printing the clock pointer as a distinguishable ID when using > the legacy clock framework, which does not store names with clocks.
You are right. We should put back ptr_to_id() there. Would you like to send a patch? Best Regards, Petr
