[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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 for the affected functions because of
>> such a change?
> Which are questions _you_ should be able to answer.

I wonder that the answers are not obvious for you already.

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 than for (string) pointers?

2. Did anybody measure already how many the execution times can vary
for these functions?

3. seq_printf() provides more functionality as this kind of programming
interface was designed for a bigger purpose.
How much do you care for consequences when such general functions
are called with input data they were not designed for mainly?

4. The seq_putc() implementation is so simple.

Where do you get doubts about its efficiency for the data processing
of a single character?

> It's your patch, after all.

Yes. - I published a special update suggestion once again.

> Once you do (and prove that the answer is 'yes' to the above two
> questions) the patch will be applied.

How do you think about to share a bit more from your software development
and testing experience?
Which call frequencies do you observe for the affected functions?

1. raid1_status
2. raid10_status
3. raid5_status


 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-17 09:41    [W:0.662 / U:0.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site