From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934808AbcJQK4n (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:56:43 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:58502 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934770AbcJQK4f (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:56:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:56:05 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Suzuki K. Poulose" , Will Deacon , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM64-cpuinfo: Combine six calls for sequence output into one seq_printf() call in c_show() Message-ID: <20161017105605.GB29095@leverpostej> References: <83d98772-8872-1b75-a9a5-5f08b8462e18@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83d98772-8872-1b75-a9a5-5f08b8462e18@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 09:03:52PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:48:28 +0200 > > Some data were printed into a sequence by six separate function calls. > Print the same data by a single function call instead. ... why? Beyond simply having fewer function calls, is there an upside? This makes it harder to see the relationship between the format strings and their associated data, and makes the code longer. Thanks, Mark. > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c | 19 +++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c > index b3d5b3e..f22687d 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c > @@ -148,14 +148,17 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > if (elf_hwcap & (1 << j)) > seq_printf(m, " %s", hwcap_str[j]); > } > - seq_puts(m, "\n"); > - > - seq_printf(m, "CPU implementer\t: 0x%02x\n", > - MIDR_IMPLEMENTOR(midr)); > - seq_printf(m, "CPU architecture: 8\n"); > - seq_printf(m, "CPU variant\t: 0x%x\n", MIDR_VARIANT(midr)); > - seq_printf(m, "CPU part\t: 0x%03x\n", MIDR_PARTNUM(midr)); > - seq_printf(m, "CPU revision\t: %d\n\n", MIDR_REVISION(midr)); > + seq_printf(m, > + "\n" > + "CPU implementer\t: 0x%02x\n" > + "CPU architecture: 8\n" > + "CPU variant\t: 0x%x\n" > + "CPU part\t: 0x%03x\n" > + "CPU revision\t: %d\n\n", > + MIDR_IMPLEMENTOR(midr), > + MIDR_VARIANT(midr), > + MIDR_PARTNUM(midr), > + MIDR_REVISION(midr)); > } > > return 0; > -- > 2.10.1 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >