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;
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Mar 2020 16:24:56 +0900
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= <uwe@kleine-koenig.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "Tobin C . Harding" <me@tobin.cc>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] lib/test_printf: Clean up basic pointer testing
Message-ID: <20200303072456.GA904@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
References: <20200227130123.32442-1-pmladek@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200227130123.32442-1-pmladek@suse.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (20/02/27 14:01), Petr Mladek wrote:
> 
> The discussion about hashing NULL pointer value[1] uncovered that
> the basic tests of pointer formatting do not follow the original
> structure and cause confusion.

FWIW, overall looks good to me.

> I feel responsible for it and here is a proposed clean up.

Extra points!

	-ss