>>> Does it improve code? Does it improve anything?
>> Yes. - I got such an impression.
>> * Is it more efficient to call the function "seq_printf" for the desired 
>> data processing
>>   for a single character than to pass it to the function "" in a string?
>> * Will the required data transfer shrink a bit for the affected functions 
>> because of
>>   such a change?
> Which are questions _you_ should be able to answer.

I wonder that the answers are not obvious for you already.

Calling the function "seq_putc" will be more efficient than "seq_printf"
in this case because of the following reasons.

1. How does the distribution look like for supported processor architectures
   where the data transfer for bytes (as a function call parameter)
   is faster than for (string) pointers?

2. Did anybody measure already how many the execution times can vary
   for these functions?

3. seq_printf() provides more functionality as this kind of programming
   interface was designed for a bigger purpose.
   How much do you care for consequences when such general functions
   are called with input data they were not designed for mainly?

4. The seq_putc() implementation is so simple.

   Where do you get doubts about its efficiency for the data processing
   of a single character?

> It's your patch, after all.

Yes. - I published a special update suggestion once again.

> Once you do (and prove that the answer is 'yes' to the above two
> questions) the patch will be applied.

How do you think about to share a bit more from your software development
and testing experience?
Which call frequencies do you observe for the affected functions?

1. raid1_status
2. raid10_status
3. raid5_status


Reply via email to