On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:51:18AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > This is certainly a neat trick.
> >
> > But I don't really like the fact that it complicates things for every
> > future code reader, especially when a trivial change in the caller
> > would accomplish the same thing. Do you have any idea how much
> > performance we would gain in exchange for the complication?
>
> Nope. I believe it's trivial in any case.
> I just saw Steven's trace hack and thought of seq_printk.
>
> Is there a real performance sensitive seq_printf anywhere?
... and _that_ is the question that should've been asked first.
> It's trivial to replace seq_printf("constant") with
> seq_puts but there are over a thousand of them.
>
> It may be better to just leave everything as-is.
Quite. Note that it's not equivalent to gcc treatment of printf/puts -
there we have cases when it *is* a real hotpath (and I seriously suspect
that it's in part driven by desire to discourage people from uglifying
source by manual equivalents of that micro-optimization). Moreover,
glibc printf at least used to be heavy; kernel-side we are nowhere near
that bad.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
