[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99a68c84-ef38-6707-b8d4-16332bda56d4@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:27:08 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc: acme@...nel.org, mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
namhyung@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] perf tool: Add time-based utility functions
On 11/28/16 6:58 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 02:39:54PM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/time-utils.h b/tools/perf/util/time-utils.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..4368a481251d
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/time-utils.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
>> +#ifndef _TIME_UTILS_H_
>> +#define _TIME_UTILS_H_
>> +
>> +struct perf_time {
>> + u64 start, end;
>> +};
>
> hum, it's more interval rather than 'time'
> would perf_interval, perf_time_interval suit better?
I'll flip to perf_interval.
ack to the other 2 comments on this patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists