[PATCH] Correct printk %pF to work on all architectures

[James Bottomley]

On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 16:15 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, James Bottomley wrote:
> > 
> > You want me to pull the elf header files into lib/vsprintf.c and have
> > something like
> 
> No.
> 
> I want you to stop polluting <linux/module.h> with total and utter crap.
> 
> Please tell my WHY the hell you have
> 
> 	diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
> 	index 68e0955..a549f89 100644
> 	--- a/include/linux/module.h
> 	+++ b/include/linux/module.h
> 	@@ -76,6 +76,11 @@ void sort_extable(struct exception_table_entry *start,
> 	                  struct exception_table_entry *finish);
> 	 void sort_main_extable(void);
> 	 
> 	+/* function descriptor handling (if any) */
> 	+#ifndef dereference_function_descriptor
> 	+#define dereference_function_descriptor(p) (p)
> 	+#endif
> 	+
> 	 #ifdef MODULE
> 	 #define MODULE_GENERIC_TABLE(gtype,name)                       \
> 	 extern const struct gtype##_id __mod_##gtype##_table           \
> 
> in your patch? What the _hell_ does that have to do with "module.h"?
> 
> Why the heck don't you just have that in the ONLY place that cares, namely 
> lib/vfprintf.c?

Oh ... because Arjan has a patch to export
dereference_function_descriptor.  I suppose I could make him do the
heavy lifting, but it seemed sensible to make it easy for him (and me)
by putting it in a header.

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121976793429869

It's already in Ingo's tree, so it will be upstream soon.

> In other words, WHY did you do something as stupid and totally 
> unexplainable as
> 
> 	diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
> 	index d8d1d11..0c47629 100644
> 	--- a/lib/vsprintf.c
> 	+++ b/lib/vsprintf.c
> 	@@ -513,16 +513,6 @@ static char *string(char *buf, char *end, char *s, int field_width, int precisio
> 	        return buf;
> 	 }
> 	 
> 	-static inline void *dereference_function_descriptor(void *ptr)
> 	-{
> 	-#if defined(CONFIG_IA64) || defined(CONFIG_PPC64)
> 	-       void *p;
> 	-       if (!probe_kernel_address(ptr, p))
> 	-               ptr = p;
> 	-#endif
> 	-       return ptr;
> 	-}
> 	-
> 
> when that thing _used_ to be in a place where it made sense? Why didn't 
> you just change that already existing code to use a #ifdef instead?
> 
> Why do you move that to <linux/module.h>? It makes no sense.
> 
> And why do you put the arch-specific defines in <asm/module.h>? That makes 
> no sense either. WHY?
> 
> As far as I can tell, the _only_ reason you happened to pick 
> <linux/module.h> was literally that it is the first of our header files 
> that lib/vsprintf.c includes. And quite frankly, that makes no sense. 
> 
> That's about as sensible as putting it into <linux/string.h>. 
> 
> Put those things in some _sane_ place. That means:
> 
>  - default non-implementation in lib/vsprintf.c, since there is no point 
>    in putting it anywhere else, when it's not used anywhere else.
> 
>  - arch-specific implementations can go into some more sensible asm header 
>    file that is more relevant. Maybe <asm/processor.h>?
> 
> IOW, I'm complaining about your totally senseless and apparently random 
> choice of location.

Because arch/../kernel/module.c is where we put the in-kernel linker
which uses the function descriptors and already processes them.

The original patch put the prototype in kernel.h, but kernel.h doesn't
include too many files before it, so if I'm putting the arch
implementation in module.c, it makes sense to me to put the headers in
linux/module.h and asm/module.h being the natural pair belonging to
arch/kernel/module.c

So if I use asm/processor.h, you want me to add that to linux/kernel.h
and move the prototypes back in there?

James