Re: [PATCH] x86: wmi: Remove private %pUL implementation

2015-09-09 Thread Darren Hart
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:08:45AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > The work performed by wmi_gtoa is equivalent to simply sprintf(out, > "%pUL", in), so one could replace its body by this. However, most > users feed the result directly as a %s argument to some other function > which also understan

[PATCH] x86: wmi: Remove private %pUL implementation

2015-09-09 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
The work performed by wmi_gtoa is equivalent to simply sprintf(out, "%pUL", in), so one could replace its body by this. However, most users feed the result directly as a %s argument to some other function which also understands the %p extensions (they all ultimately use vsnprintf), so we can elimin

Re: [PATCH] x86: wmi: Remove private %pUL implementation

2015-05-12 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On Fri, Mar 06 2015, Darren Hart wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 03:15:30PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> The work performed by wmi_gtoa is equivalent to simply sprintf(out, >> "%pUL", in), so one could replace its body by this. However, most >> users feed the result directly as a %s argumen

Re: [PATCH] x86: wmi: Remove private %pUL implementation

2015-03-06 Thread Darren Hart
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 03:15:30PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > The work performed by wmi_gtoa is equivalent to simply sprintf(out, > "%pUL", in), so one could replace its body by this. However, most > users feed the result directly as a %s argument to some other function > which also understan

[PATCH] x86: wmi: Remove private %pUL implementation

2015-02-24 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
The work performed by wmi_gtoa is equivalent to simply sprintf(out, "%pUL", in), so one could replace its body by this. However, most users feed the result directly as a %s argument to some other function which also understands the %p extensions (they all ultimately use vsnprintf), so we can elimin