Subject: Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
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>
 <c2500336-5848-66c3-ecf0-1ade04decf75@suse.de>
 <a0f96e19-fa24-8507-2b77-344a342113aa@users.sourceforge.net>
 <1476703920.2520.105.camel@petrovitsch.priv.at>
 <97f31b70-e3ff-f194-c753-54da1fe3e664@users.sourceforge.net>
 <57299b72-8e6b-0b92-4374-1b7a0907e810@suse.de>
 <cb9beadc-3ea2-c09c-f621-a54cd73e3647@users.sourceforge.net>
 <05d0cade-7922-9d8a-a974-34b2cc9150fb@suse.de>
Cc: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@suse.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>, Joe Perches <coupons@perches.com>,
        Mike Christie <mchristi@redhat.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.com>,
        Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>,
        Tomasz Majchrzak <tomasz.majchrzak@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        kbuild-all@01.org, ltp@lists.linux.it
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <bf6c54f1-7af4-747c-a58b-be13ab74563e@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:08:09 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <05d0cade-7922-9d8a-a974-34b2cc9150fb@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 967
Lines: 29

>> * Would you really like to know under which circumstances data processing
>>   will be faster for a single character instead of using a string pointer
>>   and corresponding two characters?
>>
> It's not a problem of the interface, it's a problem of the resulting code
> (ie assembler output).

How do you think about to discuss concrete generated code any further?


> We can discuss all we like, if the compiler decides to throw in
> an optimisation none of the arguments even apply.

Would it make sense to clarify assembler output with optimisation switched off?

Do you eventually care for code from non-optimising compilers?


>> * Will it occasionally be useful to avoid the storage for another string literal?
>>
> Occasionally: yes.
> In this particular case: hardly.

I am curious when such a software design aspect can become more relevant.
Would it be nice to get rid of three questionable string terminators (null bytes)
for example?

Regards,
Markus