On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 02:50:57PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > I prefer the code as-is. Unless there's a compelling reason to change it.
>
> Is the chance for faster log output interesting enough?
Is there a particular user that cares today, or are we trying to work
backwards to a
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 02:50:57PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > I prefer the code as-is. Unless there's a compelling reason to change it.
>
> Is the chance for faster log output interesting enough?
Is there a particular user that cares today, or are we trying to work
backwards to a
> I prefer the code as-is. Unless there's a compelling reason to change it.
Is the chance for faster log output interesting enough?
Regards,
Markus
> I prefer the code as-is. Unless there's a compelling reason to change it.
Is the chance for faster log output interesting enough?
Regards,
Markus
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Some data were printed into a sequence by six separate function calls.
> >> Print the same data by a single function call instead.
> >
> > ... why?
> >
> > Beyond simply having fewer function calls, is there an upside?
>
>
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Some data were printed into a sequence by six separate function calls.
> >> Print the same data by a single function call instead.
> >
> > ... why?
> >
> > Beyond simply having fewer function calls, is there an upside?
>
>
>> Some data were printed into a sequence by six separate function calls.
>> Print the same data by a single function call instead.
>
> ... why?
>
> Beyond simply having fewer function calls, is there an upside?
Will it matter to improve run time characteristics at this source code place?
>
>> Some data were printed into a sequence by six separate function calls.
>> Print the same data by a single function call instead.
>
> ... why?
>
> Beyond simply having fewer function calls, is there an upside?
Will it matter to improve run time characteristics at this source code place?
>
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 09:03:52PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:48:28 +0200
>
> Some data were printed into a sequence by six separate function calls.
> Print the same data by a single function call instead.
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 09:03:52PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:48:28 +0200
>
> Some data were printed into a sequence by six separate function calls.
> Print the same data by a single function call instead.
... why?
Beyond simply having
On 16/10/16 21:03, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:48:28 +0200
Some data were printed into a sequence by six separate function calls.
Print the same data by a single function call instead.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring
On 16/10/16 21:03, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:48:28 +0200
Some data were printed into a sequence by six separate function calls.
Print the same data by a single function call instead.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring
---
Reviewed-by: Matthias
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:48:28 +0200
Some data were printed into a sequence by six separate function calls.
Print the same data by a single function call instead.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring
---
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:48:28 +0200
Some data were printed into a sequence by six separate function calls.
Print the same data by a single function call instead.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring
---
arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c | 19 +++
1 file changed, 11
14 matches
Mail list logo