On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:03:05PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 10:44:38AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Sun 2018-02-04 18:45:21, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > Like %pK already does, print "00000000" instead.
> > >
> > > This confused people -- the convention is that "(null)" means you tried to
> > > dereference a null pointer as opposed to printing the address.
> >
> > By other words, this avoids regressions when people convert
> > %x to %px. Do I get it right, please?
It's a regression in the sense that it confuses people. %px never could
dereference a pointer so the information provided doesn't change, merely its
presentation.
> > > diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
> > > index 77ee6ced11b1..d7a708f82559 100644
> > > --- a/lib/vsprintf.c
> > > +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c
> > > @@ -1849,7 +1849,7 @@ char *pointer(const char *fmt, char *buf, char
> > > *end, void *ptr,
> > > {
> > > const int default_width = 2 * sizeof(void *);
> > >
> > > - if (!ptr && *fmt != 'K') {
> > > + if (!ptr && *fmt != 'K' && *fmt != 'x') {
>
> I don't know if it matters but with this it won't be immediately
> apparent that a null pointer was printed (since zero could hash to
> anything).
My change touches %px only, where your concern doesn't apply.
You're right, though, when it comes to %pK:
printk("%%pK: %pK, %%px: %px\n", 0, 0);
says
%pK: 00000000ba8bdc0a, %px: 0000000000000000
So what should we do? Avoid hashing 0? Print a special value?
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ The bill with 3 years prison for mentioning Polish concentration
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ camps is back. What about KL Warschau (operating until 1956)?
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Zgoda? Łambinowice? Most ex-German KLs? If those were "soviet
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ puppets", Bereza Kartuska? Sikorski's camps in UK (thanks Brits!)?
