From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:08:09 +0200 Message-ID: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <786843ef-4b6f-eb04-7326-2f6f5b408826@users.sourceforge.net> <92c52f1d-d151-cea6-e9ac-31378e6862d0@users.sourceforge.net> <1475771699.1914.10.camel@perches.com> <77fb6fdc-7480-8607-0af1-42f73c125b9d@users.sourceforge.net> <688764a4-072d-2faf-37ba-a222b190a5d9@suse.de> <59d71170-c48d-a084-c748-b6ab74a2bee4@users.sourceforge.net> <1e151094-e228-5307-ae2f-b376b31f5628@suse.de> <83e720c6-9037-a3c1-6e83-27505805f37f@users.sourceforge.net> <2cc42b2f-1f1a-e95c-91fa-54e1dd3b6d49@suse.de> <653e60ee-f862-8828-3e4f-498c7cc34bdc@users.sourceforge.net> <1476703920.2520.105.camel@petrovitsch.priv.at> <97f31b70-e3ff-f194-c753-54da1fe3e664@users.sourceforge.net> <57299b72-8e6b-0b92-4374-1b7a0907e810@suse.de> <05d0cade-7922-9d8a-a974-34b2cc9150fb@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <05d0cade-7922-9d8a-a974-34b2cc9150fb@suse.de> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Reinecke , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Cc: Bernd Petrovitsch , Christoph Hellwig , Guoqing Jiang , Jens Axboe , Joe Perches , Mike Christie , Neil Brown , Shaohua Li , Tomasz Majchrzak , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, kbuild-all@01.org, ltp@lists.linux.it List-Id: linux-raid.ids >> * Would you really like to know under which circumstances data processing >> will be faster for a single character instead of using a string pointer >> and corresponding two characters? >> > It's not a problem of the interface, it's a problem of the resulting code > (ie assembler output). How do you think about to discuss concrete generated code any further? > We can discuss all we like, if the compiler decides to throw in > an optimisation none of the arguments even apply. Would it make sense to clarify assembler output with optimisation switched off? Do you eventually care for code from non-optimising compilers? >> * Will it occasionally be useful to avoid the storage for another string literal? >> > Occasionally: yes. > In this particular case: hardly. I am curious when such a software design aspect can become more relevant. Would it be nice to get rid of three questionable string terminators (null bytes) for example? Regards, Markus