Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Nov 2013 08:28:29 +0000 | From | Rodrigo Campos <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/10] perf hists: Consolidate __hists__add_*entry() |
| |
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 05:16:04PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi Rodrigo, > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:52:43 +0000, Rodrigo Campos wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 05:09:52PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > >> @@ -486,15 +425,15 @@ struct hist_entry *__hists__add_entry(struct hists *hists, > >> .ip = al->addr, > >> .level = al->level, > >> .stat = { > >> - .period = period, > >> .nr_events = 1, > >> + .period = period, > >> .weight = weight, > >> }, > > > > Isn't this seems unrelated and unneeded ? > > > > The "period" field is before the "nr_events" field in the struct, so maybe is > > more clear to leave it as it was ? The actual relative order (it has some more > > fields) in the struct is: period, weigth, nr_events. Might be better if they > > match that order here ? Although not sure since we are using the fields with > > name and is clear enough. > > Yes, it just a small unrelated cosmetic change. I don't think the order > matters much - it just makes my eyes a bit more comfortable. :) > > IOW, I changed it since _add_branch_entry() and _add_mem_entry() do it > slightly different order. So I decided to clean it up and putting > nr_events at first looked reasonable to me.
Great, sounds reasonable to me too :)
Thangs again, Rodrigo
| |