From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751777AbdALLSl (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 06:18:41 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:58544 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750804AbdALLSi (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 06:18:38 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,349,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="212504847" Message-ID: <1484219915.2133.76.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] lib/vsnprintf: Add %par specifier for sake of consistency From: Andy Shevchenko To: Joe Perches , Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, arnd.bergmann@linaro.org Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:18:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1484182760.3065.3.camel@perches.com> References: <20170111162807.45736-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20170111155710.77c58352c40af6daef1f262b@linux-foundation.org> <1484182760.3065.3.camel@perches.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.3-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2017-01-11 at 16:59 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2017-01-11 at 15:57 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:28:07 +0200 Andy Shevchenko > o@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > While resource_size_t is repeating phys_addr_t, allocate %par > > > specifier for > > > that type for sake of consistency. > > > > > > > I'm struggling to see the value in this.  A more detailed changelog > > would help, explaining why you think the kernel would benefit from > > this. > > > > Are there callsites which should be converted?  If so, a patch which > > does at least some of those would be helpful. > > A resource_size_t isn't a different size than a phys_addr_t. > Not so far anyway. Yeah, I know. > $ git grep typedef.*resource_size_t include > include/linux/types.h:typedef phys_addr_t resource_size_t; > > Is there an arch that needs a different size? > If not, why add another case? > Just to make the kernel larger? Andrew, Joe, thanks for your comments. That's what I asked for in v1. Just drop the patch. I got my answers. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy