From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 02:02:53 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20120629.020253.963694178693689545.yamato@redhat.com> To: andrei.emeltchenko.news@gmail.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] /proc/net/ entries for bluetooth protocols From: Masatake YAMATO In-Reply-To: <20120618082826.GA2898@aemeltch-MOBL1> References: <20120615080007.GD7205@aemeltch-MOBL1> <20120617.092637.2171077367789127221.yamato@redhat.com> <20120618082826.GA2898@aemeltch-MOBL1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, Andrei Could you review my v2 patch set I submitted? https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/18/170 Masatake YAMATO > Hi Masatake, > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 09:26:37AM +0900, Masatake YAMATO wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thank you for reviewing. >> I have a question. >> >> >> + sk = sk_entry(v); >> >> + bt = bt_sk(sk); >> >> + seq_printf(seq, "%pK %-6d %-6u %-6u %-6u %-6lu", >> >> + sk, >> >> + atomic_read(&sk->sk_refcnt), >> >> + sk_rmem_alloc_get(sk), >> >> + sk_wmem_alloc_get(sk), >> >> + sock_i_uid(sk), >> >> + sock_i_ino(sk) >> >> + ); >> >> + seq_puts(seq, batostr(&bt->src)); >> > >> > batostr looks OK now but this will be outdated soon by %pMR. >> >> As far as reading Documentation/printk-formats.txt and >> pointer() in lib/vsprintf.c, %pMR is not defined. >> I guess you mean %pM, don't you? > > Sorry for confusion, I meant my patch adding new printf specifier which > is not yet in the tree. I think it will take longer time to be accepted > then your patch. > >> I've tried following code, and it works as expected. >> >> baswap(&src_baswapped, &bt->src); >> baswap(&dst_baswapped, &bt->dst); >> >> seq_printf(seq, "%pK %-6d %-6u %-6u %-6u %-6lu %pM %pM %-6lu", >> sk, >> atomic_read(&sk->sk_refcnt), >> sk_rmem_alloc_get(sk), >> sk_wmem_alloc_get(sk), >> sock_i_uid(sk), >> sock_i_ino(sk), >> &src_baswapped, >> &dst_baswapped, >> bt->parent? sock_i_ino(bt->parent): 0LU); >> > > Please use whatever method best suits for you although I prefer second > solution since it is easier to change to %pMR later. > > Best regards > Andrei Emeltchenko >