Re: [RFC] ipv6: Change %pI6 format to output compacted addresses?

[Jens Rosenboom <jens@mcbone.net>]

On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 00:15 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jens Rosenboom <jens@mcbone.net>
> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:22:05 +0200
> 
> > On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 16:31 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> >> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:13:42 -0700
> >> 
> >> > On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 17:02 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >> >> [ I would think user space in general should be using inet_pton(3)  
> >> >> everywhere for such interfaces, so the format of these addresses  
> >> >> wouldn't matter so much.  Probably impossible at this point. ]
> >> > 
> >> > David Miller is authoritative here.
> >> 
> >> In the final analysis, the risk is just too high to break
> >> userspace.  So let's play conservative here and not change
> >> the output for currently user visible stuff.
> > 
> > So just to clarify, do you want us to drop the whole thread and stay
> > with the clumsy output, or would you be o.k. with adding a new 
> > %p{something} and use that for kernel messages and maybe do some slow
> > migration of other stuff where possible?
> 
> You tell me what part of this you don't understand:
> 
> 	So let's play conservative here and not change
> 	the output for currently user visible stuff.
> 
> I can't figure out a way to express that more clearly than I did.

I wasn't sure whether "currently user visible stuff" would mean "user
space interfaces" like sys/proc-fs, which the first quoted post asked
about, or also kernel messages.