Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 Mar 2013 18:01:41 +0000 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] seq_file: Use seq_puts when seq_printf has only a format with no args |
| |
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:51:18AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > This is certainly a neat trick. > > > > But I don't really like the fact that it complicates things for every > > future code reader, especially when a trivial change in the caller > > would accomplish the same thing. Do you have any idea how much > > performance we would gain in exchange for the complication? > > Nope. I believe it's trivial in any case. > I just saw Steven's trace hack and thought of seq_printk. > > Is there a real performance sensitive seq_printf anywhere?
... and _that_ is the question that should've been asked first.
> It's trivial to replace seq_printf("constant") with > seq_puts but there are over a thousand of them. > > It may be better to just leave everything as-is.
Quite. Note that it's not equivalent to gcc treatment of printf/puts - there we have cases when it *is* a real hotpath (and I seriously suspect that it's in part driven by desire to discourage people from uglifying source by manual equivalents of that micro-optimization). Moreover, glibc printf at least used to be heavy; kernel-side we are nowhere near that bad.
| |