Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757097AbcJQMKY (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:10:24 -0400 Received: from esgaroth.petrovitsch.at ([78.47.184.11]:3025 "EHLO esgaroth.tuxoid.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752923AbcJQMKO (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:10:14 -0400 Message-ID: <1476703920.2520.105.camel@petrovitsch.priv.at> Subject: Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? From: Bernd Petrovitsch To: SF Markus Elfring , Hannes Reinecke , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Guoqing Jiang , Jens Axboe , Joe Perches , Mike Christie , Neil Brown , Shaohua Li , Tomasz Majchrzak , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, kbuild-all@01.org, ltp@lists.linux.it Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:32:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <786843ef-4b6f-eb04-7326-2f6f5b408826@users.sourceforge.net> <92c52f1d-d151-cea6-e9ac-31378e6862d0@users.sourceforge.net> <1475771699.1914.10.camel@perches.com> <77fb6fdc-7480-8607-0af1-42f73c125b9d@users.sourceforge.net> <688764a4-072d-2faf-37ba-a222b190a5d9@suse.de> <59d71170-c48d-a084-c748-b6ab74a2bee4@users.sourceforge.net> <1e151094-e228-5307-ae2f-b376b31f5628@suse.de> <83e720c6-9037-a3c1-6e83-27505805f37f@users.sourceforge.net> <2cc42b2f-1f1a-e95c-91fa-54e1dd3b6d49@suse.de> <653e60ee-f862-8828-3e4f-498c7cc34bdc@users.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DCC-x.dcc-servers-Metrics: esgaroth.tuxoid.at 104; Body=15 Fuz1=15 Fuz2=15 X-Spam-Report: * 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines * 0.2 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1182 Lines: 31 On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 13:10 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: [...] > > (Which up to now I thought was basic programming knowledge...) > > By the way: > Run time environments still exist where the size of a pointer can > be also just one byte, don't they? In the context of the Linux kernel: No. [ Side note: there might be some DSP out there with a running Linux kernel which cannot really address a "byte" (meaning 8bits) but only in register sized quantities (and also aligned for that). But no one cares here really deeply as that is a so fundamental difference that the C- compiler must cope with that anyways in the first place. ] [...] > > See above. At the moment _any_ test result from your side would do. > > I imagine that another single result might not be representative. Publish not only results but also everything (complete!) so that anyone can *easily* follow it to check and reproduce the results - especially if you want people with knowledge of other architectures to comment (otherwise they probably won't bother). Kind regards, Bernd -- Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at LUGA : http://www.luga.at