linux-kernel - Re: + mm-memcontrol-default-hierarchy-interface-for-memory-checkpatch-fixes.patch added to -mm tree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:01:47 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gthelen@...gle.com
Subject: Re: +
 mm-memcontrol-default-hierarchy-interface-for-memory-checkpatch-fixes.patch
 added to -mm tree

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:54:38 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:

> > +++ a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -5337,7 +5337,7 @@ static int memory_low_show(struct seq_fi
> >  	unsigned long low = ACCESS_ONCE(memcg->low);
> >  
> >  	if (low == 0)
> > -		seq_printf(m, "none\n");
> > +		seq_puts(m, "none\n");
> >  	else
> >  		seq_printf(m, "%llu\n", (u64)low * PAGE_SIZE);
> 
> Hm, is that really an improvement to the code?  With seq_printf() the
> calls in both branches align visually much nicer, IMO.

No, agree that it's visually worse.  But puts() is faster and has a
much smaller cache footprint.
--
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/