Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH 3/3] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: Replace seq_printf() with seq_puts()

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:33:37PM +0530, Amitoj Kaur Chawla wrote:
> Replace seq_printf() with seq_puts() since it is more expensive than
> seq_puts(). Problem found using checkpatch.pl
> WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf
> 
> Signed-off-by: Amitoj Kaur Chawla <amitoj1606@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/lproc_ptlrpc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/lproc_ptlrpc.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/lproc_ptlrpc.c
> index 6cf9b92..23f1e26 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/lproc_ptlrpc.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/lproc_ptlrpc.c
> @@ -923,7 +923,7 @@ static int ptlrpc_lprocfs_svc_req_history_show(struct seq_file *s, void *iter)
>  			   (long)(req->rq_sent - req->rq_arrival_time.tv_sec),
>  			   (long)(req->rq_sent - req->rq_deadline));
>  		if (svc->srv_ops.so_req_printer == NULL)
> -			seq_printf(s, "\n");
> +			seq_puts(s, "\n");

Shouldn't this really be seq_putc() instead?

thanks,

greg k-h