[1/1] fs/ubifs/super.c: replace seq_printf by seq_puts

Fix checkpatch warnings:
"WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf"

Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>
---
 fs/ubifs/super.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> wrote:
> Fix checkpatch warnings:
> "WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf"

Can you explain why seq_puts() is preferred over seq_printf()?

> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
> Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>
> ---
>  fs/ubifs/super.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/super.c b/fs/ubifs/super.c
> index 3904c85..e5bd068 100644
> --- a/fs/ubifs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ubifs/super.c
> @@ -424,19 +424,19 @@ static int ubifs_show_options(struct seq_file *s, struct dentry *root)
>         struct ubifs_info *c = root->d_sb->s_fs_info;
>
>         if (c->mount_opts.unmount_mode == 2)
> -               seq_printf(s, ",fast_unmount");
> +               seq_puts(s, ",fast_unmount");
>         else if (c->mount_opts.unmount_mode == 1)
> -               seq_printf(s, ",norm_unmount");
> +               seq_puts(s, ",norm_unmount");
>
>         if (c->mount_opts.bulk_read == 2)
> -               seq_printf(s, ",bulk_read");
> +               seq_puts(s, ",bulk_read");
>         else if (c->mount_opts.bulk_read == 1)
> -               seq_printf(s, ",no_bulk_read");
> +               seq_puts(s, ",no_bulk_read");
>
>         if (c->mount_opts.chk_data_crc == 2)
> -               seq_printf(s, ",chk_data_crc");
> +               seq_puts(s, ",chk_data_crc");
>         else if (c->mount_opts.chk_data_crc == 1)
> -               seq_printf(s, ",no_chk_data_crc");
> +               seq_puts(s, ",no_chk_data_crc");
>
>         if (c->mount_opts.override_compr) {
>                 seq_printf(s, ",compr=%s",
> --
> 1.8.4.5
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:10:24 +0200 Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> wrote:
> > Fix checkpatch warnings:
> > "WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf"
> 
> Can you explain why seq_puts() is preferred over seq_printf()?

- puts is presumably faster

- puts doesn't go rogue if you accidentally pass it a "%".

- this patch actually made fs/ubifs/super.o 12 bytes smaller. 
  Perhaps because seq_printf() is a varargs function, forcing the
  caller to pass args on the stack instead of in registers.

Am 15.07.2014 22:59, schrieb Andrew Morton:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:10:24 +0200 Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> wrote:
>>> Fix checkpatch warnings:
>>> "WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf"
>>
>> Can you explain why seq_puts() is preferred over seq_printf()?
> 
> - puts is presumably faster
> 
> - puts doesn't go rogue if you accidentally pass it a "%".
> 
> - this patch actually made fs/ubifs/super.o 12 bytes smaller. 
>   Perhaps because seq_printf() is a varargs function, forcing the
>   caller to pass args on the stack instead of in registers.

This needs to go into the commit message. :-)

Thanks,
//richard

On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 21:26 +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote:
> Fix checkpatch warnings:
> "WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf"

Applied to linux-ubifs.git, added Andrew's comments there, thanks.