[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a42edf4b-92c7-469d-dab1-3238cd7487bd@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 09:19:17 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: atm/clip: Use seq_puts() in svc_addr()
>> Two strings should be quickly put into a sequence by two function calls.
>> Thus use the function "seq_puts" instead of "seq_printf".
>>
>> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>
> Can you please explain what the issue really is and what you're trying
> to do here?
Is the function "seq_puts" a bit more efficient for the desired output
of a single string in comparison to calling the function "seq_printf"
for this purpose?
> One shouldn't need to dig into Coccinelle patterns to find
> out what you mean,
Why did an attribution for a software tool confuse you?
> and "strings should be quickly put into a sequence"
> isn't terribly helpful.
Which wording would you find more appropriate for the suggested
adjustment of these function calls?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists