[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180406131242.mnxutlobi7r6qi6u@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 15:12:42 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
"Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/9] vsprintf: Factor out %pV handler as va_format()
On Wed 2018-04-04 07:26:07, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:58 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Move the code from the long pointer() function. We are going to add a check
> > for the access to the address that will make it even more complicated.
> >
> > This patch does not change the existing behavior.
>
> But it might increase stack consumption.
>
> As the %pV is recursive, this is may not be a good thing.
It seems to be safe to pass just a pointer to struct printf_spec.
In fact, it would make sense to use this also in string() and
__string() calls. Copying 64 bytes many times look useless.
Do you think that other optimizations would be necessary?
For example, marking the function as inline?
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists