On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 08:46:24AM +0000, John Garry wrote: > On 26/03/2024 07:03, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:19:05PM +0000, John Garry wrote: > > > For when using gcc 8 and above, the following warnings can be seen when > > > compiling blk-throttle.c with W=1: > > > > Why is this function even using these local buffers vs a sequence > > of separate seq_printf calls that would get rid of these pointless > > on-stack buffers? > > Currently a combo of snprintf and seq_printf is used, a strategy which seems > to go as far back as 2ee867dcfa2ea (2015), when it was a much simpler print. > All the other code in this area only uses seq_printf, so it seems that the > author(s) prefer this way here. > > Here's how the current code could look (using only seq_printf): That looks much better, thanks.
