On 17.07.2019 19:06, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 17/07/2019 15:08, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> Hello, >> >> As part of some PCI related cleanup I'm doing, which includes >> expanding the usage of pci_sbdf_t, I'm also planning to add a custom >> printf formatter for pci_sbdf_t [0], so that a SBDF can be printed >> without having to specify four formatters (and pass four parameters) >> each time (%04x:%02x:%02x.%u). >> >> There's been some debate on the previous version about whether the >> formatter should be %pp or %op, and I would like to settle on one of >> them before sending a new version: > > I am firmly opposed to overloading %o.
There's actually one more argument against %p: Previously you did express a desire for our %p extensions to stay somewhat in sync with Linux'es. Linux is using quite a few of the available characters already, so there's an increasing risk of conflicts. Using %o here would risk a future conflict only if Linux eventually decided to also overload %o. And one more remark: If we were to introduce a more generic "device identifier" extension, then I'd obviously be fine with using %p. After all we'd then want to pass in struct device *. I'm actually surprised Linux doesn't already have such a generic formatter. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
