All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	"linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs/ubifs/super.c: replace seq_printf by seq_puts
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 23:02:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53C596E0.50403@nod.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140715135932.879df4f901ac58338d387a35@linux-foundation.org>

Am 15.07.2014 22:59, schrieb Andrew Morton:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:10:24 +0200 Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> wrote:
>>> Fix checkpatch warnings:
>>> "WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf"
>>
>> Can you explain why seq_puts() is preferred over seq_printf()?
> 
> - puts is presumably faster
> 
> - puts doesn't go rogue if you accidentally pass it a "%".
> 
> - this patch actually made fs/ubifs/super.o 12 bytes smaller. 
>   Perhaps because seq_printf() is a varargs function, forcing the
>   caller to pass args on the stack instead of in registers.

This needs to go into the commit message. :-)

Thanks,
//richard

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	"linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs/ubifs/super.c: replace seq_printf by seq_puts
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 23:02:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53C596E0.50403@nod.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140715135932.879df4f901ac58338d387a35@linux-foundation.org>

Am 15.07.2014 22:59, schrieb Andrew Morton:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:10:24 +0200 Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> wrote:
>>> Fix checkpatch warnings:
>>> "WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf"
>>
>> Can you explain why seq_puts() is preferred over seq_printf()?
> 
> - puts is presumably faster
> 
> - puts doesn't go rogue if you accidentally pass it a "%".
> 
> - this patch actually made fs/ubifs/super.o 12 bytes smaller. 
>   Perhaps because seq_printf() is a varargs function, forcing the
>   caller to pass args on the stack instead of in registers.

This needs to go into the commit message. :-)

Thanks,
//richard

  reply	other threads:[~2014-07-15 21:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-07-15 19:26 [PATCH 1/1] fs/ubifs/super.c: replace seq_printf by seq_puts Fabian Frederick
2014-07-15 19:26 ` Fabian Frederick
2014-07-15 20:10 ` Richard Weinberger
2014-07-15 20:10   ` Richard Weinberger
2014-07-15 20:59   ` Andrew Morton
2014-07-15 20:59     ` Andrew Morton
2014-07-15 21:02     ` Richard Weinberger [this message]
2014-07-15 21:02       ` Richard Weinberger
2014-07-16  6:19 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2014-07-16  6:19   ` Artem Bityutskiy

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=53C596E0.50403@nod.at \
    --to=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
    --cc=fabf@skynet.be \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    /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.