From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934776AbcJQMiP (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:38:15 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:60860 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933615AbcJQMh4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:37:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:37:27 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon , LKML , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Suzuki K. Poulose" Subject: Re: ARM64-cpuinfo: Combine six calls for sequence output into one seq_printf() call in c_show() Message-ID: <20161017123726.GE29095@leverpostej> References: <83d98772-8872-1b75-a9a5-5f08b8462e18@users.sourceforge.net> <20161017105605.GB29095@leverpostej> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> 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? > > Will it matter to improve run time characteristics at this source code > place? I do not know. If that's not the aim of your existing patch, then I have no idea what you're trying to achieve. > > This makes it harder to see the relationship between the format strings > > and their associated data, and makes the code longer. > > Do you prefer an other layout for the passed data so that the increase > of line count in my update suggestion would look differently? I prefer the code as-is. Unless there's a compelling reason to change it. Thanks, Mark.