From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Christian Bornträger" <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
"Heiko Carstens" <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Martin Schwidefsky" <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
"Paul Gortmaker" <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
"Peter Oberparleiter" <oberpar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Sascha Silbe" <silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Viktor Mihajlovski" <mihajlov@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 08:43:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4fd54bfb-d681-ae6f-d92c-795a6bc67a80@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51ba03f7-d1d8-8064-7dee-b5a910ad47de@oracle.com>
> It would be different if your patches fixed actual bugs.
I dare to point change possibilities out which correspond to a special error category.
There can be different opinions about their relevance for further software improvements.
> This is just mindless code transformations that MAY in the best case save a few bytes
> of code here and there (I don't know; you didn't say).
Do you know the run time characteristics for the discussed functions good enough?
http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.11/source/fs/seq_file.c#L405
> But the potential gains from these incredibly numerous and tiny patches
> that don't fix anything are so small, it's a waste of time, bandwidth,
> and mental capacity for you and for everybody involved.
I suggest a bit of code reduction at various places once more.
> I just searched my inbox for patches from you and you sent literally
> _hundreds_ over the past few days,
I sent update suggestions in this scale since the year 2014.
> all doing this crazy printf/puts/putc transformation.
I agree that the corresponding number could be remarkable.
But there are also other source code search patterns involved besides information
around these logging functions.
> Another bit of searching and I see that I'm not the first one giving you
> this response:
You are right that some agreements and disagreements were expressed already
(depending on the software area).
Regards,
Markus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Christian Bornträger" <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
"Heiko Carstens" <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Martin Schwidefsky" <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
"Paul Gortmaker" <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
"Peter Oberparleiter" <oberpar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Sascha Silbe" <silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Viktor Mihajlovski" <mihajlov@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:43:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4fd54bfb-d681-ae6f-d92c-795a6bc67a80@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51ba03f7-d1d8-8064-7dee-b5a910ad47de@oracle.com>
> It would be different if your patches fixed actual bugs.
I dare to point change possibilities out which correspond to a special error category.
There can be different opinions about their relevance for further software improvements.
> This is just mindless code transformations that MAY in the best case save a few bytes
> of code here and there (I don't know; you didn't say).
Do you know the run time characteristics for the discussed functions good enough?
http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.11/source/fs/seq_file.c#L405
> But the potential gains from these incredibly numerous and tiny patches
> that don't fix anything are so small, it's a waste of time, bandwidth,
> and mental capacity for you and for everybody involved.
I suggest a bit of code reduction at various places once more.
> I just searched my inbox for patches from you and you sent literally
> _hundreds_ over the past few days,
I sent update suggestions in this scale since the year 2014.
> all doing this crazy printf/puts/putc transformation.
I agree that the corresponding number could be remarkable.
But there are also other source code search patterns involved besides information
around these logging functions.
> Another bit of searching and I see that I'm not the first one giving you
> this response:
You are right that some agreements and disagreements were expressed already
(depending on the software area).
Regards,
Markus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-09 8:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-07 17:12 [PATCH 0/4] S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:12 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:13 ` [PATCH 1/4] s390/cache: Combine two function calls into one in show_cacheinfo() SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:13 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:14 ` [PATCH 2/4] s390/processor: Use seq_putc() in show_cpu_summary() SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:14 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:16 ` [PATCH 3/4] s390/sysinfo: Replace six seq_printf() calls by seq_puts() SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:16 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:18 ` [PATCH 4/4] s390/sysinfo: Combine two function calls into one SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-07 17:18 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-09 8:04 ` [PATCH 0/4] S390: Fine-tuning for six function implementations Vegard Nossum
2017-05-09 8:04 ` Vegard Nossum
2017-05-09 8:43 ` SF Markus Elfring [this message]
2017-05-09 8:43 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-09 10:30 ` [PATCH 0/4] " Ingo Molnar
2017-05-09 10:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-05-09 10:54 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-05-09 10:54 ` SF Markus Elfring
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4fd54bfb-d681-ae6f-d92c-795a6bc67a80@users.sourceforge.net \
--to=elfring@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mihajlov@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oberpar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=vegard.nossum@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.