On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 13:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 17:54:47 + Al Viro wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 06:50:44AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
> > > a constant format (without a % substitution) to
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 17:54:47 + Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 06:50:44AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
> > a constant format (without a % substitution) to seq_puts,
> > maybe there's another way to slightly speed up these
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 17:54:47 + Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 06:50:44AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
a constant format (without a % substitution) to seq_puts,
maybe there's another way to slightly
On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 13:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 17:54:47 + Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 06:50:44AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
a constant format (without a %
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 18:01 +, Al Viro wrote:
> 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
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
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 06:50:44AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
> a constant format (without a % substitution) to seq_puts,
> maybe there's another way to slightly speed up these outputs.
>
> Taking a similar approach to commit abd84d60eb
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 09:43 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
> > a constant format (without a % substitution) to seq_puts,
> > maybe there's another way to slightly speed up these
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 09:43 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Checkpatch could look for additions of seq_printf() with constant formats.
Suggested-by: Bjorn Helgaas
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches
---
I don't know what perl version introduced $-[0] and $+[0]
so this may not work with older perl.
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 09:15 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > +int (seq_printf)(struct seq_file *m, const char *f, ...)
> >
> > That's rather ugly. Why not just #undef seq_printf before defining it?
>
> The whole thing is ugly, nasty and hackish.
> I kinda like it.
>
> But I don't like
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 11:57 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> My macro nastiness is contagious ;-)
True.
> On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 06:50 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > +int (seq_printf)(struct seq_file *m, const char *f, ...)
>
> That's rather ugly. Why not just #undef seq_printf before defining it?
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 09:43 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> This is certainly a neat trick.
Thank you ;-)
>
> 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
My macro nastiness is contagious ;-)
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 06:50 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
> a constant format (without a % substitution) to seq_puts,
> maybe there's another way to slightly speed up these outputs.
>
> Taking a
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
> a constant format (without a % substitution) to seq_puts,
> maybe there's another way to slightly speed up these outputs.
>
> Taking a similar approach to commit abd84d60eb
>
Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
a constant format (without a % substitution) to seq_puts,
maybe there's another way to slightly speed up these outputs.
Taking a similar approach to commit abd84d60eb
("tracing: Optimize trace_printk() with one arg to use trace_puts()")
Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
a constant format (without a % substitution) to seq_puts,
maybe there's another way to slightly speed up these outputs.
Taking a similar approach to commit abd84d60eb
(tracing: Optimize trace_printk() with one arg to use trace_puts())
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
a constant format (without a % substitution) to seq_puts,
maybe there's another way to slightly speed up these outputs.
Taking a similar approach to commit
My macro nastiness is contagious ;-)
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 06:50 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
a constant format (without a % substitution) to seq_puts,
maybe there's another way to slightly speed up these outputs.
Taking a similar
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 09:43 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
This is certainly a neat trick.
Thank you ;-)
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
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 11:57 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
My macro nastiness is contagious ;-)
True.
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 06:50 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
+int (seq_printf)(struct seq_file *m, const char *f, ...)
That's rather ugly. Why not just #undef seq_printf before defining it?
The
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 09:15 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
+int (seq_printf)(struct seq_file *m, const char *f, ...)
That's rather ugly. Why not just #undef seq_printf before defining it?
The whole thing is ugly, nasty and hackish.
I kinda like it.
But I don't like unnecessary undefs.
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 09:43 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
Checkpatch could look for additions of seq_printf() with constant formats.
Suggested-by: Bjorn Helgaas bhelg...@google.com
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches j...@perches.com
---
I don't know what perl version introduced $-[0] and $+[0]
so this
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 09:43 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
a constant format (without a % substitution) to seq_puts,
maybe there's another way to slightly speed up
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 06:50:44AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
a constant format (without a % substitution) to seq_puts,
maybe there's another way to slightly speed up these outputs.
Taking a similar approach to commit abd84d60eb
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
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 18:01 +, Al Viro wrote:
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
