[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <529F37B0.6010209@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 16:09:52 +0200
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] perf script: Do not call perf_event__preprocess_sample()
twice)
On 03/12/13 20:23, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:23:04AM +0200, Adrian Hunter escreveu:
>> perf_event__preprocess_sample() is called in
>> process_sample_event(). Instead of calling it
>> again in perf_evsel__print_ip(), pass though
>> the resultant addr_location.
>
> <SNIP>
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/session.c
>> @@ -1487,11 +1487,12 @@ struct perf_evsel *perf_session__find_first_evtype(struct perf_session *session,
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> -void perf_evsel__print_ip(struct perf_evsel *evsel, union perf_event *event,
>> +void perf_evsel__print_ip(struct perf_evsel *evsel,
>> + union perf_event *event __maybe_unused,
>
> Why do we have to keep this parameter?
You are right - it is not needed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists