Hi Andy,
On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 at 18:30, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 at 15:39, Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue 2025-04-22 10:43:59, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > The problem is that the semantic is not the same. The modifiers affect
> > > the output ordering of IPv4 addresses while they affect the reading order
> > > in case of FourCC code.
> >
> > Note that for IPv4 addresses we have %pI4, which BTW also takes [hnbl]
> > modifiers.
>
> Ouch, now I think I understand your complain. You mean that the behaviour of
> h/n here is different to what it is for IPv4 case?
Indeed. "%pI4n" byte-swaps on little-endian, but not on big-endian
(remember, network byte-order _is_ big-endian), while "%p4cn" swaps
everywhere.
> > > Avoid the confusion by replacing the "n" modifier with "hR", aka
> > > reverse host ordering.
>
> Not ideal, but better than 'h'ost / 'r'everse pair. Not giving a tag and not
> objecting either if there is a consensus.
That is worth as much as my LGTM ;-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
