On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 10:01:42 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [ 1.498171] <TASK> > > [ 1.498172] h0000000cb9bc262 > > [ 1.498174] ? h0000000eb5021dd > > [ 1.498176] h0000000ed1a9938 > > [ 1.498178] </TASK> > > > > But 'h' is not a valid number number so it might confuse parsers as > > well. And it is not that user friedly either. > > > > So, I still like more Steven's variant with [hash]. > > While it does make sense to add [hash] to make it obvious it breaks > formatting for some of the %p users where %p is expected to have a fixed > length depending on 32/64 bit. Here, it is a %pS so adding extra it > wouldn't break anything but I don't think it should be different between > %p and %pS assuming we do print the hash instead 'unknown'. Since the hash value is usually less than a normal pointer length, we could have it be: h:XXXXXX on 32bit and h:XXXXXXXXXXXXXX on 64 bit, where it will not take up more than the size expected. [ 1.498171] <TASK> [ 1.498172] h:000000cb9bc262 [ 1.498174] ? h:000000eb5021dd [ 1.498176] h:000000ed1a9938 [ 1.498178] </TASK> -- Steve
