From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove support for deprecated %pf and %pF in vsprintf Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 23:19:32 +0200 Message-ID: <20190324211932.GK9224@smile.fi.intel.com> References: <20190322132108.25501-1-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> <20190322135350.2btpno7vspvewxvk@paasikivi.fi.intel.com> <20190322170550.GX9224@smile.fi.intel.com> <20190324211008.lypghym3gqcp62th@mara.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190324211008.lypghym3gqcp62th@mara.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sakari Ailus Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Petr Mladek , Linux Kernel Mailing List , scsi , Linux PM list , Linux MMC List , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, ACPI Devel Maling List , netdev , linux-btrfs , linux-pci , sparclinux , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, ceph-devel , Linux MM , Linux ARM List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:10:08PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:05:50PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 03:53:50PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > > Porting a patch > > > forward should have no issues either as checkpatch.pl has been complaining > > > of the use of %pf and %pF for a while now. > > > > And that's exactly the reason why I think instead of removing warning on > > checkpatch, it makes sense to convert to an error for a while. People are > > tending read documentation on internet and thus might have outdated one. And > > yes, the compiler doesn't tell a thing about it. > > > > P.S. Though, if majority of people will tell that I'm wrong, then it's okay to > > remove. > > I wonder if you wrote this before seeing my other patchset. Yes, I wrote it before seeing another series. > What I think could be done is to warn of plain %pf (without following "w") > in checkpatch.pl, and %pf that is not followed by "w" in the kernel. > Although we didn't have such checks to begin with. The case is still a > little bit different as %pf used to be a valid conversion specifier whereas > %pO likely has never existed. > > So, how about adding such checks in the other set? I can retain %p[fF] check > here, too, if you like. Consistency tells me that the warning->error transformation in checkpatch.pl belongs this series. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko