>>> Perhaps reword the changelog to say that seqc_putc is more efficient than
>>> seqc_printf to output a single char.
>>> I mean _printf is not wrong but not as efficient ?
>> I came along source files for a few other software modules with similar
>> change possibilities.
>> Unfortunately, the corresponding developers are not convinced yet
>> to replace a call of the function "seq_printf" at the end by
>> a "seq_putc" because of software efficiency reasons.
> I was ambivalent so far - but not anymore :-)

Interesting …

> what is the objection - can you point me to a few links where people don't 
> think
> this is not a good idea.

Yes, of course. - Does the double negation in this wording indicate another
special software development concern?

How do you think about another update suggestion like "[PATCH] MD-RAID: Use 
in three status functions" (from 2016-10-16)?

>> Do you find this update suggestion acceptable to some degree
>> for the function "setup"?

I am curious what your opinions will be for further development of the
function "show_cpuinfo" in the source file "arch/arc/kernel/setup.c".


linux-snps-arc mailing list

Reply via email to