On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 at 15:39, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue 2025-04-22 10:43:59, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: ... > > The problem is that the semantic is not the same. The modifiers affect > > the output ordering of IPv4 addresses while they affect the reading order > > in case of FourCC code. > > Note that for IPv4 addresses we have %pI4, which BTW also takes [hnbl] > modifiers. Ouch, now I think I understand your complain. You mean that the behaviour of h/n here is different to what it is for IPv4 case? > > Avoid the confusion by replacing the "n" modifier with "hR", aka > > reverse host ordering. Not ideal, but better than 'h'ost / 'r'everse pair. Not giving a tag and not objecting either if there is a consensus. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
