From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751568AbaAESJ5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jan 2014 13:09:57 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0170.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.170]:34152 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751281AbaAESJ4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jan 2014 13:09:56 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:960:973:988:989:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2559:2562:2691:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3871:3874:4321:5007:7652:7903:7904:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12296:12517:12519:12533:12740:13069:13311:13357:13618,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: bear14_3947a843c3305 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1960 Message-ID: <1388945392.5808.19.camel@joe-AO722> Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/vsprintf: add %pT[C012] format specifier From: Joe Perches To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: keescook@chromium.org, pavel@ucw.cz, akpm@linux-foundation.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, jkosina@suse.cz, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 10:09:52 -0800 In-Reply-To: <201401051215.ACJ30759.MJSHtFFFVOOOQL@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> References: <201401021349.JGJ78109.OOFtFFHJMLSOQV@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <1388770748.14334.19.camel@joe-AO722> <201401041126.BHJ81291.VOHLOtMFOJFQFS@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <201401051215.ACJ30759.MJSHtFFFVOOOQL@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 12:15 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Since my purpose is to make reading of task_struct->comm consistent, %pT-like > > extension is what I want for centralizing pointer dereferences. > > If we have no objections for %pT[C012] patch, I still believe emitting different output styles using %pT[012] is not ideal. Is this really necessary? I'd prefer that each element be described separately using %pT where T is a struct task_struct and type is a member. type 'c' -> tsk.comm type 'p' -> tsk.pid type 't' -> task.tgid though if the real concern is simply comm consistency, maybe these other member types aren't at all useful.