On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:55:42AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > - seq_printf(m, "shadow register sets\t: %d\n", > > - cpu_data[n].srsets); > > - seq_printf(m, "kscratch registers\t: %d\n", > > - hweight8(cpu_data[n].kscratch_mask)); > > - seq_printf(m, "package\t\t\t: %d\n", cpu_data[n].package); > > - seq_printf(m, "core\t\t\t: %d\n", cpu_data[n].core); > > + seq_printf(m, > > + "shadow register sets\t: %d\n" > > + "kscratch registers\t: %d\n" > > + "package\t\t\t: %d\n" > > + "core\t\t\t: %d\n", > > + cpu_data[n].srsets, > > + hweight8(cpu_data[n].kscratch_mask), > > + cpu_data[n].package, > > + cpu_data[n].core); > > I think the code is much easier to read with separate seq_printf()s for > each line printed. Which is why I originally implemented this as separate function calls. Code size and performance are hardly an argument for /proc/cpuinfo. Ralf
