[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d8738585-21f3-8691-4c53-bfbafef925be@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:19:14 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Cc: "linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>,
Andrea Gelmini <andrea.gelmini@...ma.net>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ARC-setup: Use seq_putc() in show_cpuinfo()
>> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists