| Message ID | 164a402a-de20-645d-00af-9a414cf745c4@users.sourceforge.net |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 10/15/2016 12:56 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> > Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 21:31:16 +0200 > > A single character (line break) should be put into a sequence. > Thus use the corresponding function "seq_putc". Perhaps reword the changelog to say that seqc_putc is more efficient than seqc_printf to output a single char. I mean _printf is not wrong but not as efficient ? > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> > --- > arch/arc/kernel/setup.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arc/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arc/kernel/setup.c > index 3df7f9c..e3f5432 100644 > --- a/arch/arc/kernel/setup.c > +++ b/arch/arc/kernel/setup.c > @@ -494,8 +494,7 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > > free_page((unsigned long)str); > done: > - seq_printf(m, "\n"); > - > + seq_putc(m, '\n'); > return 0; > } >
>> A single character (line break) should be put into a sequence. >> Thus use the corresponding function "seq_putc". > > Perhaps reword the changelog to say that seqc_putc is more efficient than > seqc_printf to output a single char. > I mean _printf is not wrong but not as efficient ? I came along source files for a few other software modules with similar change possibilities. Unfortunately, the corresponding developers are not convinced yet to replace a call of the function "seq_printf" at the end by a "seq_putc" because of software efficiency reasons. Do you find this update suggestion acceptable to some degree for the function "setup"? Regards, Markus
On 10/17/2016 10:19 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> A single character (line break) should be put into a sequence. >>> Thus use the corresponding function "seq_putc". >> Perhaps reword the changelog to say that seqc_putc is more efficient than >> seqc_printf to output a single char. >> I mean _printf is not wrong but not as efficient ? > I came along source files for a few other software modules with similar > change possibilities. > Unfortunately, the corresponding developers are not convinced yet > to replace a call of the function "seq_printf" at the end by > a "seq_putc" because of software efficiency reasons. I was ambivalent so far - but not anymore :-) what is the objection - can you point me to a few links where people don't think this is not a good idea. > Do you find this update suggestion acceptable to some degree > for the function "setup"? > > Regards, > Markus >
>>> Perhaps reword the changelog to say that seqc_putc is more efficient than >>> seqc_printf to output a single char. >>> I mean _printf is not wrong but not as efficient ? >> I came along source files for a few other software modules with similar >> change possibilities. >> Unfortunately, the corresponding developers are not convinced yet >> to replace a call of the function "seq_printf" at the end by >> a "seq_putc" because of software efficiency reasons. > > I was ambivalent so far - but not anymore :-) Interesting … > what is the objection - can you point me to a few links where people don't think > this is not a good idea. Yes, of course. - Does the double negation in this wording indicate another special software development concern? How do you think about another update suggestion like "[PATCH] MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions" (from 2016-10-16)? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9378055/ https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<77fb6fdc-7480-8607-0af1-42f73c125b9d@users.sourceforge.net> >> Do you find this update suggestion acceptable to some degree >> for the function "setup"? I am curious what your opinions will be for further development of the function "show_cpuinfo" in the source file "arch/arc/kernel/setup.c". Regards, Markus
diff --git a/arch/arc/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arc/kernel/setup.c index 3df7f9c..e3f5432 100644 --- a/arch/arc/kernel/setup.c +++ b/arch/arc/kernel/setup.c @@ -494,8 +494,7 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v) free_page((unsigned long)str); done: - seq_printf(m, "\n"); - + seq_putc(m, '\n'); return 0; }