Re: RFC: introduce struct ksymbol

Joe Perches
2009-04-17T07:56:22Z

On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 20:21 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:28:39 pm Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Why not 'struct ksym'? That name is unused right now, it is shorter
> > and just as descriptive.
> >
> > Regarding the change... dunno. Sam, Rusty - what do you think?
>
> Yes, ksym is nice. But agree with you that it's marginal obfuscation
> to wrap it in a struct.
>
> The current symbol printing APIs are awful; we should address them first
> (like the %pF patch does) IMHO.

I suggest just %pS<type>

With %pS, struct ksym is probably not all that
useful unless it's for something like a sscanf.

Today there are these symbol uses:
name, offset, size, modname

So perhaps %pS<foo> where foo is any combination of:

n name
o offset
s size
m modname
a all

and if not specified is a name lookup ("%pSn").