Re: the printk problem

[Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>]

On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 01:27:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > so I think we could easily just say that we extend %p in various ways:
> > > 
> > >  - %pS - print pointer as a symbol
> > > 
> > > and leave tons of room for future extensions for different kinds of 
> > > pointers. 
> 
> If this takes off we might want a register-your-printk-handler
> interface.  Maybe.
> 
> We also jump through hoops to print things like sector_t and
> resource_size_t.  They always need to be cast to `unsiged long long',
> which generates additional stack space and text in some setups.

The thing is that GCC checks types.  So it's fine to add "print this
pointer specially", but you can't in general add new printf arguments
without also hacking GCC.  Unless you use -Wno-format, and require
sparse to check special kernel types.

> And then there's the perennial "need to cast u64 to unsigned long long
> to print it".  If we were to do
> 
> 	printk("%SL", (void *)some_u64);
> 
> then that's still bloody ugly, but it'll save a little text-n-stack.

u64 is easy to fix, and I don't know why we haven't.  Just make it
unsigned long long on all architectures.

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."