From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751843Ab0CFW5y (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Mar 2010 17:57:54 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:57270 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751096Ab0CFW5w (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Mar 2010 17:57:52 -0500 Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 14:57:46 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Joe Perches cc: Andrew Morton , Nick Andrew , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 0/2] Make functions of dev_ macros, recursive vsnprintf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20100304143837.af39845d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1267911399.849.39.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> <1267914654.849.81.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I'm not convinced. We pass that 'printf_spec' around a lot, including > nesting. Not as a pointer, either. Btw, I wonder if those fields could become bitfields, or 'unsigned char' etc. That printf_spec really is unnecessarily big. It should _easily_ fit in a single register on a 64-bit platform, possibly even a 32-bit one (we could limit field width and precision to 5 bits, for example) Linus