From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055A6C4360F for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:13:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D1E2083D for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:13:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729329AbfCYPNN (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:13:13 -0400 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:51572 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726010AbfCYPNN (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:13:13 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Mar 2019 08:13:11 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,269,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="330511062" Received: from ikahlonx-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO kekkonen.fi.intel.com) ([10.252.61.250]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2019 08:13:06 -0700 Received: by kekkonen.fi.intel.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 75F7A21D09; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 17:13:00 +0200 (EET) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 17:13:00 +0200 From: Sakari Ailus To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Petr Mladek , Linux Kernel Mailing List , scsi , Linux PM list , Linux MMC List , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, ACPI Devel Maling List , netdev , linux-btrfs , linux-pci , sparclinux , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, ceph-devel , Linux MM , Linux ARM , Lars Ellenberg Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove support for deprecated %pf and %pF in vsprintf Message-ID: <20190325151259.2w22y4ijqilrbaxj@kekkonen.localdomain> References: <20190322132108.25501-1-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> <20190322135350.2btpno7vspvewxvk@paasikivi.fi.intel.com> <20190322170550.GX9224@smile.fi.intel.com> <20190324211008.lypghym3gqcp62th@mara.localdomain> <20190324211932.GK9224@smile.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190324211932.GK9224@smile.fi.intel.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org Hi Andy, On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:19:32PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:10:08PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:05:50PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 03:53:50PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > > > > Porting a patch > > > > forward should have no issues either as checkpatch.pl has been complaining > > > > of the use of %pf and %pF for a while now. > > > > > > And that's exactly the reason why I think instead of removing warning on > > > checkpatch, it makes sense to convert to an error for a while. People are > > > tending read documentation on internet and thus might have outdated one. And > > > yes, the compiler doesn't tell a thing about it. > > > > > > P.S. Though, if majority of people will tell that I'm wrong, then it's okay to > > > remove. > > > > I wonder if you wrote this before seeing my other patchset. > > Yes, I wrote it before seeing another series. > > > What I think could be done is to warn of plain %pf (without following "w") > > in checkpatch.pl, and %pf that is not followed by "w" in the kernel. > > Although we didn't have such checks to begin with. The case is still a > > little bit different as %pf used to be a valid conversion specifier whereas > > %pO likely has never existed. > > > > So, how about adding such checks in the other set? I can retain %p[fF] check > > here, too, if you like. > > Consistency tells me that the warning->error transformation in checkpatch.pl > belongs this series. All other invalid pointer conversion specifiers currently result into a warning only. I see that as an orthogonal change to this set. I found another issue in checkpatch.pl that may require some discussion; would you be ok with addressing this in another set? -- Regards, Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com