From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: atm/clip: Use seq_puts() in svc_addr() Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:30:12 +0100 Message-ID: References: <97636808-1d9f-d196-ebce-fbd2505c50e2@users.sourceforge.net> <20180106232539.5d6bb620@elisabeth> <20180107163008.4ddd0c79@elisabeth> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Bhumika Goyal , "David S. Miller" , David Windsor , Elena Reshetova , Hans Liljestrand , Johannes Berg , Kees Cook , Roopa Prabhu , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org To: Stefano Brivio , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180107163008.4ddd0c79@elisabeth> Content-Language: en-GB Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org >> Is the function "seq_puts" a bit more efficient for the desired output >> of a single string in comparison to calling the function "seq_printf" >> for this purpose? > > Will you please be so kind and tell us? How do you think about to get the run time characteristics for these sequence output functions better documented? https://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.15-rc6/source/fs/seq_file.c#L660 Can an information like “WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf” (from the script “checkpatch.pl”) be another incentive? >>> and "strings should be quickly put into a sequence" >>> isn't terribly helpful. >> >> Which wording would you find more appropriate for the suggested >> adjustment of these function calls? > > Whatever describes the actual issue and what you're doing about it. > Turn your rhetorical question above into a commit message, done. > > Compare that with your original commit message, on the other hand, > and you should understand what I mean. Which descriptions are you really missing for the affected data output? Regards, Markus