Re: [PATCH 0/6] md: Fine-tuning for some function implementations

[NeilBrown]

On Tue, May 02 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 16:12:34 +0200
>
> Some update suggestions were taken into account
> from static source code analysis.
>
> Markus Elfring (6):
>   Replace seven seq_printf() calls by seq_putc()
>   Replace 17 seq_printf() calls by seq_puts()

Why does anyone care whether printf or putc/puts is used?  Really it
doesn't matter *at* *all*.
I don't object to the patch but if it would up to me I probably wouldn't
bother applying it it either.
Sometimes I just want to "print" something and I don't want to care
whether it is a constant string or a single-byte constant string, or
something more general.
I see these changes as worse than white-space fixes.

NeilBrown


>   Adjust four function calls together with a variable assignment
>   Use seq_puts() in faulty_status()
>   Adjust six function calls together with a variable assignment in faulty_status()
>   Add some spaces for better code readability
>
>  drivers/md/faulty.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>  drivers/md/md.c     | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  2 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
>
> -- 
> 2.12.2

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature