linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs/ubifs/super.c: replace seq_printf by seq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20140715135932.879df4f901ac58338d387a35@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:59:32 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
Cc:	Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs/ubifs/super.c: replace seq_printf by seq_puts

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:10:24 +0200 Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be> wrote:
> > Fix checkpatch warnings:
> > "WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf"
> 
> Can you explain why seq_puts() is preferred over seq_printf()?

- puts is presumably faster

- puts doesn't go rogue if you accidentally pass it a "%".

- this patch actually made fs/ubifs/super.o 12 bytes smaller. 
  Perhaps because seq_printf() is a varargs function, forcing the
  caller to pass args on the stack instead of in registers.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/