On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:13:38PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Paul E. McKenney
> > Sent: 04 December 2017 13:42
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:32:30PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Paul E. McKenney
> > > > Sent: 01 December 2017 20:09
> > > >
> > > > Because %p prints "(null)" and %pK prints "0000000000000000" or (on
> > > > 32-bit systems) "00000000", this commit adjusts torture-test scripting
> > > > accordingly.
> > >
> > > Surely NULL v not-NULL is one bit of info that the message needs to
> > > contain?
> >
> > Indeed. So the script needs to check for the strings "00000000",
> > "0000000000000000", and "(null) in the console output". The "(null)"
> > is what "%p" prints for a NULL pointer, and the other two strings are
> > what "%pK" prints for a NULL pointer.
> >
> > Or am I missing your point?
>
> I was thinking that even %pK should print "(null)".
That was my expectation, as in the need for this patch came as a
surprise to me.
> Perhaps it should have printed a fixed, non-zero value for non-zero
> pointers.
I must leave this to the people who have a dog in that contest. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
