>>> Perhaps reword the changelog to say that seqc_putc is more efficient than >>> seqc_printf to output a single char. >>> I mean _printf is not wrong but not as efficient ? >> I came along source files for a few other software modules with similar >> change possibilities. >> Unfortunately, the corresponding developers are not convinced yet >> to replace a call of the function "seq_printf" at the end by >> a "seq_putc" because of software efficiency reasons. > > I was ambivalent so far - but not anymore :-) Interesting ? > what is the objection - can you point me to a few links where people don't think > this is not a good idea. Yes, of course. - Does the double negation in this wording indicate another special software development concern? How do you think about another update suggestion like "[PATCH] MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions" (from 2016-10-16)? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9378055/ https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<77fb6fdc-7480-8607-0af1-42f73c125b9d at users.sourceforge.net> >> Do you find this update suggestion acceptable to some degree >> for the function "setup"? I am curious what your opinions will be for further development of the function "show_cpuinfo" in the source file "arch/arc/kernel/setup.c". Regards, Markus
