linux-kernel - Re: ARC-setup: Use seq_putc() in show

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]

Message-ID: <418ba237-d501-c8d1-cf2b-3ec4b6d46785@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:39:41 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Cc:     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()

>>> 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@...rs.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