>> 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?
> How would I know?
How many processor architecture characteristics do you know already?
* Is a string pointer often longer than a byte?
* I imagine that it can become also interesting to check byte level data access
under constraints of machine word sizes and alignment.
> I would assume that _you_ did some measurements here;
How much would you trust in any concrete numbers I could present
for this use case?
Do you give more trust to a reference testing platform?
> I could easily claim that seq_printf() is more efficient than
> seq_putc(), and won't apply your patch.
This is also possible in principle.
> So _you_ have to prove that your patch is more efficient.
How many results would we like to clarify from various hardware
and software combinations?
>> 2. Did anybody measure already how many the execution times can vary
>> for these functions?
> Probably not.
Thanks for this information.
How important are the mentioned functions for you within the Linux
programming interface so far?
> Unless _you_ prove that _your_ patch is more efficient it won't get applied.
Which data would you accept as a "prove" in this case?
>> Where do you get doubts about its efficiency for the data processing
>> of a single character?
> Because it's being called at the end of a function calling seq_printf()
Interesting view …
> So exchanging a single call is probably not helping anything,
> as the compiler will optimize it anyway.
How common is the discussed software transformation between implementations
for optimising compilers?
> Case in point: with your patch the x86_64 compiler generates nearly
> identical code for driver/md/raid1.c, but with one instruction _more_
> after your patch has been applied.
Which software versions and command parameters did you try out
for this information (from an unspecified run time environment)?
> So it's not immediately obvious that your patch is an improvement.
I agree that there are system properties and constraints which can be