MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a3P4rDqQaNmBR9C9nF3VCqcQOH06Nq8RyDHsNfc0Ms13g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170608134811.60786-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20170608134811.60786-5-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <CAK8P3a0JDvd-frxQvOe7RVPBgA6M-RBiw=Tt1dP1EJa+L4qQoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VfUU9fO-jnY32caKywf8h3bdst9zBf66Wjz6C5+4z1okA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK8P3a3P4rDqQaNmBR9C9nF3VCqcQOH06Nq8RyDHsNfc0Ms13g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:02:15 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfeyGH9wHmvcmJN9M8GNfG0iXTNO_wacsr+9SZ2CUJxYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 04/25] lib/vsprintf: Print time and date in human
 readable format via %pt
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>,
        linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Guan Xuetao <gxt@mprc.pku.edu.cn>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1702
Lines: 43

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andy Shevchenko
>>> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

>>> I really like the idea, and the implementation seems fine for this use case, but
>>> before we reserve %pt for rtc_time, could we discuss whether we want
>>> that for printing struct tm, struct timespec64, time64_t or ktime_t instead?
>>
>> How many users?
>
> It's hard to predict, I would assume we get more users once there is an
> easy way to print the time.

So, at least for now we can guess using existing users, right?

I don't check yet how to calculate those cases of time64_t,
timespec64, ktime_t and alike if they are about pretty ptintong time
and date.
I'm speculating that there are (almost) none.

>> For struct tm it's somelike 4 (which want to print its content).
>
> Good point. I notice that they all convert from time64_t or time_t into
> struct tm immediately before printing it, so we can scratch that one
> as long as there is a way to pretty-print a time64_t. We also don't
> need to print a time_t as we want to kill that one off anyway.
>
> If we only care about printing time64_t and rtc_time, we can easily
> use %pT for one and %pt for the other, but there may still be good
> reasons to print a timespec64 or ktime_t.

No need, we may still use 3rd/4th letter in the format for that.

%pt(t/d) time/date + whatever modifications, like raw, validate, timespec, etc.

's' for timespec64, for example.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko