Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 4 Jul 2018 18:20:54 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
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>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Message-Id: <20180704152053.GJ4352@rapoport-lnx>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.