From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f71.google.com (mail-ed1-f71.google.com [209.85.208.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D9C6B0281 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 11:21:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f71.google.com with SMTP id g1-v6so2330925edp.2 for ; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 08:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com. [148.163.156.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z14-v6si1371156edq.292.2018.07.04.08.21.04 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Jul 2018 08:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w64FIhjJ034304 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 11:21:02 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2k0yt8th66-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 11:21:02 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 16:21:00 +0100 Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 18:20:54 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: replace u64 with phys_addr_t where appropriate References: <1530637506-1256-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180703125722.6fd0f02b27c01f5684877354@linux-foundation.org> <063c785caa11b8e1c421c656b2a030d45d6eb68f.camel@perches.com> <20180704070305.GB4352@rapoport-lnx> <20180704072308.GA458@jagdpanzerIV> <8dc61092669356f5417bc275e3b7c69ce637e63e.camel@perches.com> <20180704092042.GC458@jagdpanzerIV> <20180704094344.GD458@jagdpanzerIV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180704094344.GD458@jagdpanzerIV> Message-Id: <20180704152053.GJ4352@rapoport-lnx> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Joe Perches , Andrew Morton , linux-mm , lkml , Michal Hocko , Matthew Wilcox , Linus Torvalds On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 06:43:44PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (07/04/18 18:20), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > There's this saying about habits made to be broken. > > > This is one of those habits. > > > > > > I'd expect more people probably get the %pS or %ps wrong > > > than use %pF. > > > > > > And most people probably look for examples in code and > > > copy instead of thinking what's correct, so removing old > > > and deprecated uses from existing code is a good thing. > > > > Well, I don't NACK the patch, I just want to keep pf/pF in vsprintf(), > > that's it. Yes, checkpatch warns about pf/pF uses, becuase we don't want > > any new pf/pF in the code - it's rather confusing to have both pf/pF and > > ps/pS -- but I don't necessarily see why would we want to mess up with > > parisc/hppa/ia64 people using pf/pF for debugging purposes, etc. I'm not > > married to pf/pF, if you guys insist on complete removal of pf/pF then so > > be it. > > And just for the record - I think the reason why I didn't feel like > doing a tree wide pf->ps conversion was that some of those pf->ps > printk-s could end up in -stable backports [sure, no one backports > print out changes, but a print out can be part of a fix which gets > backported, etc]. So I just decided to stay away from this. IIRC. Well, this is true for any printk that uses %p[sS]. There were plenty of those even when %pf and %ps were different... > -ss > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.