Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Jun 2020 23:52:40 +0200 | From | Jiri Olsa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 05/10] perf tools: Add expr__del_id function |
| |
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:55:37PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:47 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Adding expr__del_id function to remove ID from hashmap. > > It will save us few lines in following changes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> > > --- > > tools/perf/util/expr.c | 21 +++++++++++++-------- > > tools/perf/util/expr.h | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/expr.c b/tools/perf/util/expr.c > > index 29cdef18849c..aa14c7111ecc 100644 > > --- a/tools/perf/util/expr.c > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/expr.c > > @@ -75,6 +75,17 @@ int expr__get_id(struct expr_parse_ctx *ctx, const char *id, > > return hashmap__find(&ctx->ids, id, (void **)data) ? 0 : -1; > > } > > > > +void expr__del_id(struct expr_parse_ctx *ctx, const char *id) > > +{ > > + struct expr_parse_data *old_val = NULL; > > + char *old_key = NULL; > > + > > + hashmap__delete(&ctx->ids, id, > > + (const void **)&old_key, (void **)&old_val); > > + free(old_key); > > + free(old_val); > > +} > > + > > void expr__ctx_init(struct expr_parse_ctx *ctx) > > { > > hashmap__init(&ctx->ids, key_hash, key_equal, NULL); > > @@ -132,16 +143,10 @@ int expr__parse(double *final_val, struct expr_parse_ctx *ctx, > > int expr__find_other(const char *expr, const char *one, > > struct expr_parse_ctx *ctx, int runtime) > > { > > - struct expr_parse_data *old_val = NULL; > > - char *old_key = NULL; > > int ret = __expr__parse(NULL, ctx, expr, EXPR_OTHER, runtime); > > > > - if (one) { > > - hashmap__delete(&ctx->ids, one, > > - (const void **)&old_key, (void **)&old_val); > > - free(old_key); > > - free(old_val); > > - } > > + if (one) > > + expr__del_id(ctx, one); > > Nit, I always have to read the code to know why we have "one" as an > argument. Could we remove it as an argument and have the caller use > expr__del_id?
I'll check sounds like good thing to do
thanks, jirka
| |