On 2016/6/22 21:40, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 08:17:02AM -0500, Nilay Vaish escreveu:
On 22 June 2016 at 04:08, Wang Nan <wangn...@huawei.com> wrote:
+struct perf_evlist *perf_evlist__new_aux(struct perf_evlist *parent)
+{
+ struct perf_evlist *evlist;
+
+ if (perf_evlist__is_aux(parent)) {
+ pr_err("Internal error: create aux evlist from another aux
evlist\n");
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ evlist = zalloc(sizeof(*evlist));
+ if (!evlist)
+ return NULL;
+
+ perf_evlist__init(evlist, parent->cpus, parent->threads);
+ evlist->parent = parent->parent;
A very minor suggestion. I think evlist->parent should be set to
'parent' and not 'parent->parent'. I agree the two values are equal,
but setting to parent->parent just does not seem right.
I felt like that, thought I was missing something, which is always a bad
feeling when processing a patch... So, Wang, does that have some value
we are not seeing?
I thought about the possibility of adding an aux2 to an aux1 evlist and
that making aux2 have the same parent as aux1, but that is checked on
that pr_err() test...
The pr_err() test is added yesterday to emphasize we don't accept
grandchildren. Before we have this test, setting parent to parent->parent
is a defensive programming. And I think it is clever :)
Thank you.
