Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>>> So back to the original task for you: Show me in the generated output where >>> the benefits are. I can offer another bit of information for this software development discussion. The following build settings were active in my "Makefile" for this Linux test case. … HOSTCFLAGS = -Wall

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>>> So back to the original task for you: Show me in the generated output where >>> the benefits are. I can offer another bit of information for this software development discussion. The following build settings were active in my "Makefile" for this Linux test case. … HOSTCFLAGS = -Wall

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>> So back to the original task for you: Show me in the generated output where >> the benefits are. I can offer another bit of information for this software development discussion. The following build settings were active in my "Makefile" for this Linux test case. … HOSTCFLAGS = -Wall

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>> So back to the original task for you: Show me in the generated output where >> the benefits are. I can offer another bit of information for this software development discussion. The following build settings were active in my "Makefile" for this Linux test case. … HOSTCFLAGS = -Wall

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

> So back to the original task for you: Show me in the generated output where > the benefits are. I can offer a bit more information for this software development discussion. The afffected source files can be compiled for the processor architecture "x86_64" by a tool like "GCC

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

> So back to the original task for you: Show me in the generated output where > the benefits are. I can offer a bit more information for this software development discussion. The afffected source files can be compiled for the processor architecture "x86_64" by a tool like "GCC

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On 10/17/2016 06:08 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: * Would you really like to know under which circumstances data processing will be faster for a single character instead of using a string pointer and corresponding two characters? It's not a problem of the interface, it's a problem of the

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On 10/17/2016 06:08 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: * Would you really like to know under which circumstances data processing will be faster for a single character instead of using a string pointer and corresponding two characters? It's not a problem of the interface, it's a problem of the

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>> * Would you really like to know under which circumstances data processing >> will be faster for a single character instead of using a string pointer >> and corresponding two characters? >> > It's not a problem of the interface, it's a problem of the resulting code > (ie assembler output).

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>> * Would you really like to know under which circumstances data processing >> will be faster for a single character instead of using a string pointer >> and corresponding two characters? >> > It's not a problem of the interface, it's a problem of the resulting code > (ie assembler output).

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On 10/17/2016 04:30 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: Am I the only software developer so far who would dare to reconsider implementation details from three status functions? No. Thanks for this kind of promising feedback. But we're waiting for you showing is that it is an improvement. Can

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On 10/17/2016 04:30 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: Am I the only software developer so far who would dare to reconsider implementation details from three status functions? No. Thanks for this kind of promising feedback. But we're waiting for you showing is that it is an improvement. Can

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>> Am I the only software developer so far who would dare to reconsider >> implementation details from three status functions? >> > No. Thanks for this kind of promising feedback. > But we're waiting for you showing is that it is an improvement. Can this aspect also be clarified to some degree

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>> Am I the only software developer so far who would dare to reconsider >> implementation details from three status functions? >> > No. Thanks for this kind of promising feedback. > But we're waiting for you showing is that it is an improvement. Can this aspect also be clarified to some degree

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On 10/17/2016 01:10 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> * Is a string pointer often longer than a byte? >>> >> Always. > > I have got doubts for this specific information. > > >> (Which up to now I thought was basic programming knowledge...) > > By the way: > Run time environments still exist

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On 10/17/2016 01:10 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> * Is a string pointer often longer than a byte? >>> >> Always. > > I have got doubts for this specific information. > > >> (Which up to now I thought was basic programming knowledge...) > > By the way: > Run time environments still exist

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On 10/17/2016 01:43 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: See above. At the moment _any_ test result from your side would do. >>> >>> I imagine that another single result might not be representative. >> >> Publish not only results but also everything (complete!) so that anyone >> can *easily* follow

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On 10/17/2016 01:43 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: See above. At the moment _any_ test result from your side would do. >>> >>> I imagine that another single result might not be representative. >> >> Publish not only results but also everything (complete!) so that anyone >> can *easily* follow

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 13:10 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: [...] > > (Which up to now I thought was basic programming knowledge...) > > By the way: > Run time environments still exist where the size of a pointer can > be also just one byte, don't they? In the context of the Linux kernel: No. [

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 13:10 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: [...] > > (Which up to now I thought was basic programming knowledge...) > > By the way: > Run time environments still exist where the size of a pointer can > be also just one byte, don't they? In the context of the Linux kernel: No. [

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>>> See above. At the moment _any_ test result from your side would do. >> >> I imagine that another single result might not be representative. > > Publish not only results but also everything (complete!) so that anyone > can *easily* follow it to check and reproduce the results - especially > if

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>>> See above. At the moment _any_ test result from your side would do. >> >> I imagine that another single result might not be representative. > > Publish not only results but also everything (complete!) so that anyone > can *easily* follow it to check and reproduce the results - especially > if

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>> * Is a string pointer often longer than a byte? >> > Always. I have got doubts for this specific information. > (Which up to now I thought was basic programming knowledge...) By the way: Run time environments still exist where the size of a pointer can be also just one byte, don't they?

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>> * Is a string pointer often longer than a byte? >> > Always. I have got doubts for this specific information. > (Which up to now I thought was basic programming knowledge...) By the way: Run time environments still exist where the size of a pointer can be also just one byte, don't they?

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On 10/17/2016 11:00 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> 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

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On 10/17/2016 11:00 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> 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

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>> 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

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>> 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

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On 10/17/2016 09:39 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: 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

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On 10/17/2016 09:39 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: 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

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>>> 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

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>>> 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

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On 10/16/2016 07:10 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> 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 ""

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

On 10/16/2016 07:10 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> 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 ""

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

> Yes. - I got such an impression. Correction: * Is it more efficient to call the function "seq_putc" for the desired data processing for a single character than to pass it to the function "seq_printf" in a string? * Will the required data transfer shrink a bit for the affected functions

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

> Yes. - I got such an impression. Correction: * Is it more efficient to call the function "seq_putc" for the desired data processing for a single character than to pass it to the function "seq_printf" in a string? * Will the required data transfer shrink a bit for the affected functions

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

> 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

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

> 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

Re: [PATCH] MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions

On 10/16/2016 10:20 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: From: Markus Elfring Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:10:28 +0200 A single character (a closing square bracket) should be put into a sequence at the end in these functions. Thus use the corresponding function "seq_putc".

Re: [PATCH] MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions

On 10/16/2016 10:20 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: From: Markus Elfring Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:10:28 +0200 A single character (a closing square bracket) should be put into a sequence at the end in these functions. Thus use the corresponding function "seq_putc". This issue was detected also

[PATCH] MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions

From: Markus Elfring Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:10:28 +0200 A single character (a closing square bracket) should be put into a sequence at the end in these functions. Thus use the corresponding function "seq_putc". This issue was detected also by using the

[PATCH] MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions

From: Markus Elfring Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:10:28 +0200 A single character (a closing square bracket) should be put into a sequence at the end in these functions. Thus use the corresponding function "seq_putc". This issue was detected also by using the Coccinelle software. Signed-off-by: