Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:02:15 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 04/25] lib/vsprintf: Print time and date in human readable format via %pt |
| |
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andy Shevchenko >>> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> I really like the idea, and the implementation seems fine for this use case, but >>> before we reserve %pt for rtc_time, could we discuss whether we want >>> that for printing struct tm, struct timespec64, time64_t or ktime_t instead? >> >> How many users? > > It's hard to predict, I would assume we get more users once there is an > easy way to print the time.
So, at least for now we can guess using existing users, right?
I don't check yet how to calculate those cases of time64_t, timespec64, ktime_t and alike if they are about pretty ptintong time and date. I'm speculating that there are (almost) none.
>> For struct tm it's somelike 4 (which want to print its content). > > Good point. I notice that they all convert from time64_t or time_t into > struct tm immediately before printing it, so we can scratch that one > as long as there is a way to pretty-print a time64_t. We also don't > need to print a time_t as we want to kill that one off anyway. > > If we only care about printing time64_t and rtc_time, we can easily > use %pT for one and %pt for the other, but there may still be good > reasons to print a timespec64 or ktime_t.
No need, we may still use 3rd/4th letter in the format for that.
%pt(t/d) time/date + whatever modifications, like raw, validate, timespec, etc.
's' for timespec64, for example.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |