From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:24:28 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 7/7] checkpatch: add pF/pf deprecation warning Message-Id: <1505931868.12311.7.camel@perches.com> List-Id: References: <20170920162910.32053-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> <20170920162910.32053-8-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> <1505929138.12311.5.camel@perches.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Helge Deller , Sergey Senozhatsky , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , James Bottomley Cc: Petr Mladek , Steven Rostedt , Andrew Morton , Jessica Yu , Alexei Starovoitov , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 19:53 +0200, Helge Deller wrote: > On 20.09.2017 19:38, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 01:29 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > We deprecated '%pF/%pf' printk specifiers, since '%pS/%ps' is now smart > > > enough to handle function pointer dereference on platforms where such > > > dereference is required. > > > > > > checkpatch warning example: > > > > > > WARNING: Use '%pS/%ps' instead. This pointer extension was deprecated: '%pF' > > > > If this series is accepted, I think this message > > is unclear and would prefer something like: > > Is it worth to mention, that it's still needed in older kernels? > Just in case some patch get's backported. I think probably not. There are relatively few references and modifications are unlikely to be backported.