Messages in this thread | | | From | Namhyung Kim <> | Date | Sat, 27 Dec 2014 14:30:15 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/37] perf tools: Use perf_data_file__fd() consistently |
| |
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 1:30 AM, David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/24/14 12:14 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote: > >> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-inject.c b/tools/perf/builtin-inject.c >> index 84df2deed988..d8b13407594d 100644 >> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-inject.c >> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-inject.c >> @@ -375,8 +375,10 @@ static int __cmd_inject(struct perf_inject *inject) >> } >> } >> > > How about a local variable to make this more readable? > fd = perf_data_file__fd(file_out)
Will do.
> >> - if (!file_out->is_pipe) >> - lseek(file_out->fd, session->header.data_offset, >> SEEK_SET); >> + if (!file_out->is_pipe) { >> + lseek(perf_data_file__fd(file_out), >> session->header.data_offset, >> + SEEK_SET); >> + } >> >> ret = perf_session__process_events(session, &inject->tool); >> >> @@ -385,7 +387,8 @@ static int __cmd_inject(struct perf_inject *inject) >> perf_header__set_feat(&session->header, >> HEADER_BUILD_ID); >> session->header.data_size = inject->bytes_written; >> - perf_session__write_header(session, session->evlist, >> file_out->fd, true); >> + perf_session__write_header(session, session->evlist, >> + perf_data_file__fd(file_out), >> true); >> } >> >> return ret; >> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >> index aa5fa6aabb31..054c6e57d3b9 100644 >> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c >> @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ static int process_buildids(struct record *rec) >> struct perf_session *session = rec->session; >> u64 start = session->header.data_offset; >> >> - u64 size = lseek(file->fd, 0, SEEK_CUR); >> + u64 size = lseek(perf_data_file__fd(file), 0, SEEK_CUR); >> if (size == 0) >> return 0; >> >> @@ -360,12 +360,12 @@ static int __cmd_record(struct record *rec, int >> argc, const char **argv) >> perf_header__clear_feat(&session->header, >> HEADER_GROUP_DESC); > > > Similarly in this function.
No problem.
Thanks, Namhyung
| |