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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: add extra integer types to printk-formats
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Louis Taylor <louis@kragniz.eu>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        pmladek@suse.com, geert+renesas@glider.be,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com,
        Jon Flatley <jflat@chromium.org>
References: <20190303123647.22020-1-louis@kragniz.eu>
 <20190303201016.GO9224@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAKwvOdm4uCWCtSMVQDVTSKavpT0dCo+ayuwvoXtewmk+ksn5sA@mail.gmail.com>
 <e244390e3d245c94d6d2fb036943e63111ada86d.camel@perches.com>
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <a13c431c-5bfe-1bef-78c8-dbac942ca02b@infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 5 Mar 2019 13:00:41 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e244390e3d245c94d6d2fb036943e63111ada86d.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 3/5/19 11:59 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 09:59 -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 12:10 PM Andy Shevchenko
>> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 12:36:47PM +0000, Louis Taylor wrote:
>>>> A few commonly used integer types were absent from this table, so add
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> I'm not against the patch, but isn't obvious by reading POSIX and / or man
>>> printf(3)?
>>
>> You'd think; but based on the sheer number of -Wformat warnings
>> (~450), I'm not so sure.
> 
> <shrug>  software defects are always present.
> 
> Many of the -Wformat warnings are bogus too.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with using %x for a unsigned int
> of less than long size. (u8/u16)
> 
>>   At least with this patch they're "above the
>> fold."
> 
> I'd personally go with
> "posix plus kernel specific deletions and extensions"

Yeah, I don't think that all of the "standard" types/formats need
to be in there.  Just the differences.

>> The kernel also has its own format flag extensions, and does not
>> implement %n (for good reason), so it's better to be explicit than
>> imply posix or glibc compat.
> 
> %i is also supported and used a few hundred times
> 
> 


-- 
~Randy