From 0b74d4d763fd4ee9daa53889324300587c015338 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petr Mladek Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 13:53:47 +0200 Subject: vsprintf: Consolidate handling of unknown pointer specifiers There are few printk formats that make sense only with two or more specifiers. Also some specifiers make sense only when a kernel feature is enabled. The handling of unknown specifiers is inconsistent and not helpful. Using WARN() looks like an overkill for this type of error. pr_warn() is not good either. It would by handled via printk_safe buffer and it might be hard to match it with the problematic string. A reasonable compromise seems to be writing the unknown format specifier into the original string with a question mark, for example (%pC?). It should be self-explaining enough. Note that it is in brackets to follow the (null) style. Note that it introduces a warning about that test_hashed() function is unused. It is going to be used again by a later patch. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190417115350.20479-8-pmladek@suse.com To: Rasmus Villemoes Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Tobin C . Harding" Cc: Joe Perches Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Steven Rostedt Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reviewed-by: Sergey Senozhatsky Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek --- lib/test_printf.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'lib/test_printf.c') diff --git a/lib/test_printf.c b/lib/test_printf.c index 659b6cc0d483..250ee864b8b8 100644 --- a/lib/test_printf.c +++ b/lib/test_printf.c @@ -462,8 +462,7 @@ struct_rtc_time(void) .tm_year = 118, }; - test_hashed("%pt", &tm); - + test("(%ptR?)", "%pt", &tm); test("2018-11-26T05:35:43", "%ptR", &tm); test("0118-10-26T05:35:43", "%ptRr", &tm); test("05:35:43|2018-11-26", "%ptRt|%ptRd", &tm, &tm); -- cgit v1.2.3