[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160530193254.GC2563@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 16:32:54 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] perf config: Reimplement perf_config() using
perf_config_set__iter()
Em Tue, May 31, 2016 at 01:44:08AM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu:
> +static int perf_config_set__iter(struct perf_config_set *set, config_fn_t fn, void *data)
> +{
> + struct perf_config_section *section;
> + struct perf_config_item *item;
> + struct list_head *sections;
> + char key[BUFSIZ];
> +
> + if (set == NULL)
> + return -1;
<SNIP>
> + return 0;
> +}
> +int perf_config(config_fn_t fn, void *data)
> +{
> + if (perf_config_set__check() < 0)
> + return -1;
> + return perf_config_set__iter(config_set, fn, data);
> +}
"check" looks too vague, this is equivalent, no?
int perf_config(config_fn_t, void *data)
{
if (config_set == NULL)
config_set = perf_config_set__new();
return perf_config_set__iter(config_set, fn, data);
}
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists