Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: replace u64 with phys_addr_t where appropriate

[Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 06:43:44PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (07/04/18 18:20), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > There's this saying about habits made to be broken.
> > > This is one of those habits.
> > > 
> > > I'd expect more people probably get the %pS or %ps wrong
> > > than use %pF.
> > > 
> > > And most people probably look for examples in code and
> > > copy instead of thinking what's correct, so removing old
> > > and deprecated uses from existing code is a good thing.
> > 
> > Well, I don't NACK the patch, I just want to keep pf/pF in vsprintf(),
> > that's it. Yes, checkpatch warns about pf/pF uses, becuase we don't want
> > any new pf/pF in the code - it's rather confusing to have both pf/pF and
> > ps/pS -- but I don't necessarily see why would we want to mess up with
> > parisc/hppa/ia64 people using pf/pF for debugging purposes, etc. I'm not
> > married to pf/pF, if you guys insist on complete removal of pf/pF then so
> > be it.
> 
> And just for the record - I think the reason why I didn't feel like
> doing a tree wide pf->ps conversion was that some of those pf->ps
> printk-s could end up in -stable backports [sure, no one backports
> print out changes, but a print out can be part of a fix which gets
> backported, etc]. So I just decided to stay away from this. IIRC.

Well, this is true for any printk that uses %p[sS]. There were plenty of
those even when %pf and %ps were different... 
 
> 	-ss
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.