Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:27:40 +0900 | From | Namhyung Kim <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 14/23] perf ui/stdio: Implement hierarchy output mode |
| |
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:29:31PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:23:45PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 10:01:46PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > > > > > > - for (nd = rb_first(&hists->entries); nd; nd = rb_next(nd)) { > > > + for (nd = rb_first(&hists->entries); nd; nd = rb_hierarchy_next(nd)) { > > > struct hist_entry *h = rb_entry(nd, struct hist_entry, rb_node); > > > float percent; > > > > > > @@ -542,6 +614,9 @@ print_entries: > > > MAP__FUNCTION, fp); > > > fprintf(fp, "%.10s end\n", graph_dotted_line); > > > } > > > + > > > + if (symbol_conf.report_hierarchy) > > > + h->unfolded = true; > > > > what's this for? > > > > ah it's stdio, we need to show everything.. ok ;-)
Right. :)
> > I was thinking of putting this 'force un/fold' logic into the > rb_hierarchy_next interface, because it's also not nice in > hists__filter_hierarchy function.. > > maybe having extra argument telling the walk preference > would be easier to read, like: > > rb_hierarchy_next(&h->rb_node, FORCE_UNFOLD); > rb_hierarchy_next(&h->rb_node, FORCE_FOLD); > rb_hierarchy_next(&h->rb_node, DEFAULT); > > with some better names of course > > just an idea.. it might turn horrible as well ;-)
Seems like a good idea. I'll think about it in the next spin.
Thanks, Namhyung
| |