On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 10:04:23AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > @@ -120,14 +120,12 @@ static int traverse(struct seq_file *m, loff_t offset)
> > if (pos + m->count > offset) {
> > m->from = offset - pos;
> > m->count -= m->from;
> > - m->index = index;
> > break;
> > }
> > pos += m->count;
> > m->count = 0;
> > if (pos == offset) {
> > index++;
> > - m->index = index;
> > break;
> > }
> > p = m->op->next(m, p, &index);
>
> Of course this looks correct, but how
> are you _absolutely sure_ about this?
>
> Perhaps the m->op->stop(m, p) call below
> the break, which takes m as an argument,
> needs an updated m->index.
Not only that, but ->next might also look at m->index.
This is not performance critical; don't try to optimise it.
Programmers waste enormous amounts of time thinking about, or worrying
about, the speed of noncritical parts of their programs, and these
attempts at efficiency actually have a strong negative impact when
debugging and maintenance are considered. We should forget about small
efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the
root of all evil. Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that
critical 3%. -- Donald Knuth
