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:   Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:20:37 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] lib/vsprintf: Print time64_t in human readable
 format
Message-ID: <20190726132037.GX9224@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20190104193009.30907-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20190108152528.utr3a5huran52gsf@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20190110215858.GG2362@piout.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190110215858.GG2362@piout.net>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:58:58PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 08/01/2019 16:25:28+0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Fri 2019-01-04 21:30:06, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > There are users which print time and date represented by content of
> > > time64_t type in human readable format.
> > > 
> > > Instead of open coding that each time introduce %ptT[dt][r] specifier.
> > > 
> > > Few test cases for %ptT specifier has been added as well.

> > > +void time64_to_rtc_time(time64_t time, struct rtc_time *rtc_time)
> > > +{
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RTC_LIB
> > > +	rtc_time64_to_tm(time, rtc_time);

> > I wonder if the conversion between struct tm and rtc_time
> > might be useful in general.
> >
> > It might make sense to de-duplicate time64_to_tm() and
> > rtc_time64_to_tm() implementations.

> Looking at 57f1f0874f42, this seemed to be the plan at the time
> time_to_tm was introduced but this was never done. Seeing that tm and
> rtc_time are quite similar, we could probably always use time64_to_tm as
> it is more accurate than rtc_time64_to_tm as the latter assumes a
> specific year range.

So, do I understand correctly that dropping #ifdef along with
rtc_time64_to_tm() call is sufficient for now?

> Maybe be rtc_str should take a struct tm instead of an rtc_time so
> time64_to_rtc_time always uses time64_to_tm.

Because this one, while sounding plausible, maybe too invasive on current
state of affairs.

> > > +#else
> > > +	struct tm tm;
> > > +
> > > +	time64_to_tm(time, 0, &tm);
> > > +
> > > +	rtc_time->tm_sec = tm.tm_sec;
> > > +	rtc_time->tm_min = tm.tm_min;
> > > +	rtc_time->tm_hour = tm.tm_hour;
> > > +	rtc_time->tm_mday = tm.tm_mday;
> > > +	rtc_time->tm_mon = tm.tm_mon;
> > > +	rtc_time->tm_year = tm.tm_year;
> > > +	rtc_time->tm_wday = tm.tm_wday;
> > > +	rtc_time->tm_yday = tm.tm_yday;
> > > +
> > > +	rtc_time->tm_isdst = 0;
> > > +#endif
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static noinline_for_stack
> > > +char *time64_str(char *buf, char *end, const time64_t *t, const char *fmt)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct rtc_time tm;
> > > +
> > > +	time64_to_rtc_time(*t, &tm);
> > > +
> > > +	return rtc_str(buf, end, &tm, fmt);
> > > +}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko