On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:03:07 -0800 Tom Rix wrote: > On 12/17/20 9:28 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 05:17:24 -0800 Tom Rix wrote: > >> On 12/16/20 4:45 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 06:22:28 -0800 t...@redhat.com wrote: > >>>> From: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> > >>>> > >>>> See Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst. > >>>> h should no longer be used in the format specifier for printk. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> > >>> That's for new code I assume? > >>> > >>> What's the harm in leaving this ancient code be? > >> This change is part of a tree wide cleanup. > > What's the purpose of the "clean up"? Why is it making the code better? > > > > This is a quote from your change: > > > > - PRINTK (KERN_NOTICE, "debug bitmap is %hx", debug &= DBG_MASK); > > + PRINTK (KERN_NOTICE, "debug bitmap is %x", debug &= DBG_MASK); > > > > Are you sure that the use of %hx is the worst part of that line? > > In this case, it means this bit of code is compliant with the %h checker in > checkpatch. > > why you are seeing this change for %hx and not the horrible debug &= or the > old PRINTK macro is because the change was mechanical. > > leveraging the clang build and a special fixit for %h, an allyesconfig for > x86_64 cleans this problem from most of the tree in about an hour. atm/ was > just one of the places it hit, there are about 100 more. > > If you want the debug &= fixed, i can do that.
No, the opposite of that. I would like to see fewer patches touching prehistoric code for little to no gain :( > The macro is a treewide problem and i can add that to the treewide cleanups i > am planning.
