On Wed, 17 Feb 2021, Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com wrote:
On Mon 2021-02-15 16:39:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
+Cc: Sakari and printk people
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 4:28 PM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Am 15.02.21 um 15:21 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
We have already few similar implementation and a lot of code that can benefit of the yesno() helper. Consolidate yesno() helpers under string.h hood.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
Looks like a good idea to me, feel free to add an Acked-by: Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com to the series.
Thanks.
But looking at the use cases for this, wouldn't it make more sense to teach kprintf some new format modifier for this?
As a next step? IIRC Sakari has at some point the series converted yesno and Co. to something which I don't remember the details of.
Guys, what do you think?
Honestly, I think that yesno() is much easier to understand than %py. And %py[DOY] looks really scary. It has been suggested at https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YCqaNnr7ynRydczE@smile.fi.intel.com/#t
Yes, enabledisable() is hard to parse but it is still self-explaining and can be found easily by cscope. On the contrary, %pyD will likely print some python code and it is not clear if it would be compatible with v3. I am just kidding but you get the picture.
Personally I prefer %s and the functions.
I think the format specifiers have become unwieldy. I don't remember any of the kernel specific ones by heart, I always look them up or just cargo-cult. I think the fourcc format specifiers are a nice cleanup, but I don't remember them either. I'd like something like %foo{yesno} where, if you remember the %foo part, you could actually also remember the rest.
But really if you get *any* version accepted, I'm not going to argue against it, and you can disregard this as meaningless bikeshedding.
BR, Jani.