From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: seq_file: optimize seq_pad()
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:21:23 +0100
Message-ID: <20140910132123.GZ7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <1410340819-18338-1-git-send-email-voytikd@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Dmitry Voytik <voytikd@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1410340819-18338-1-git-send-email-voytikd@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 01:20:19PM +0400, Dmitry Voytik wrote:
> Use seq_putc() instead of seq_printf() in seq_pad() because the
> former is faster.

_Solitary_ seq_putc() is certainly going to be faster, but that loop...
Do you have profiling results, or is it just an apriori "printf must
be sloooowwww"?