On 2026-09-01 09:23:37 [+0200], Petr Mladek wrote: > On Mon 2026-08-31 12:49:28, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 15:37:29 +0200 > > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Could someone yell here, please? I convinced myself that hiding > > > unresolved pointers is the good thing to do here since a "wrong" pointer > > > would be seen in backtrace anyway. > > > > > > Thread starts at > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > > I wonder if we should just tagged hash values as such: > > > > | [ 1.498171] <TASK> > > | [ 1.498172] 00000000cb9bc262 [hash] > > | [ 1.498174] ? 00000000eb5021dd [hash] > > | [ 1.498176] 00000000ed1a9938 [hash] > > | [ 1.498178] </TASK> > > > > So that people will know that the value is just some random hash value and > > not a real address. > > > > Although rather useless in call stacks, I like hash values because the same > > address will show up the same. > > > > Having '[unknown]' may also be confusing because it doesn't really say > > "why" it was unknown. But having a number goes back to what it always did. > > Hashing it with a "[hash]" marker will also let people know the value was > > hashed. > > I like this idea. I just wonder whether it might confuse some parsers > who expect that symbol name is one string. %ps, %pS, %pB are used > in various context. > > I think about adding the hint into the hashed value, e.g. by using > 'h' instead of the highest number, something like: > > [ 1.498171] <TASK> > [ 1.498172] h0000000cb9bc262 > [ 1.498174] ? h0000000eb5021dd > [ 1.498176] h0000000ed1a9938 > [ 1.498178] </TASK> > > But 'h' is not a valid number number so it might confuse parsers as > well. And it is not that user friedly either. > > So, I still like more Steven's variant with [hash].
While it does make sense to add [hash] to make it obvious it breaks formatting for some of the %p users where %p is expected to have a fixed length depending on 32/64 bit. Here, it is a %pS so adding extra it wouldn't break anything but I don't think it should be different between %p and %pS assuming we do print the hash instead 'unknown'. > Best Regards, > Petr Sebastian
