Subject: Re: atm/clip: Use seq_puts() in svc_addr()
To: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@gmail.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
References: <97636808-1d9f-d196-ebce-fbd2505c50e2@users.sourceforge.net>
 <20180106232539.5d6bb620@elisabeth>
 <a42edf4b-92c7-469d-dab1-3238cd7487bd@users.sourceforge.net>
 <20180107163008.4ddd0c79@elisabeth>
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <c6ab8967-ec45-2bfb-9212-9db42562be81@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:30:12 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180107163008.4ddd0c79@elisabeth>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

>> Is the function "seq_puts" a bit more efficient for the desired output
>> of a single string in comparison to calling the function "seq_printf"
>> for this purpose?
> 
> Will you please be so kind and tell us?

How do you think about to get the run time characteristics for these
sequence output functions better documented?
https://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.15-rc6/source/fs/seq_file.c#L660

Can an information like “WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf”
(from the script “checkpatch.pl”) be another incentive?


>>> and "strings should be quickly put into a sequence"
>>> isn't terribly helpful.  
>>
>> Which wording would you find more appropriate for the suggested
>> adjustment of these function calls?
> 
> Whatever describes the actual issue and what you're doing about it.
> Turn your rhetorical question above into a commit message, done.
> 
> Compare that with your original commit message, on the other hand,
> and you should understand what I mean.

Which descriptions are you really missing for the affected data output?

Regards,
Markus