Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:09:12 +0200 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: RFC: introduce struct ksymbol |
| |
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:55:33AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 20:21 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:28:39 pm Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > Why not 'struct ksym'? That name is unused right now, it is shorter > > > and just as descriptive. > > > > > > Regarding the change... dunno. Sam, Rusty - what do you think? > > > > Yes, ksym is nice. But agree with you that it's marginal obfuscation > > to wrap it in a struct. > > > > The current symbol printing APIs are awful; we should address them first > > (like the %pF patch does) IMHO. > > I suggest just %pS<type> > > With %pS, struct ksym is probably not all that > useful unless it's for something like a sscanf. > > Today there are these symbol uses: > name, offset, size, modname > > So perhaps %pS<foo> where foo is any combination of: > > n name > o offset > s size > m modname > a all > > and if not specified is a name lookup ("%pSn").
Joe,
It seems to me a rather good idea, it offers a good granularity about what has to displayed.
The only problem is the end result:
%pSnosm, %pSno, %pSosm, ...
One could end up stuck reading such a format, trying to guess if the developer wanted to print the symbol + "nosm" or something...
But since I don't see any point in printing nosm directly after a symbol... :)
I like this.
Anyone? Any doubt?
> >
| |