On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 20:15:47 +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:06:46PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:56:42PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: >> > From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung....@lge.com> >> > @@ -481,6 +459,11 @@ static void hists__process(struct hists *old, struct >> > hists *new) >> > else >> > hists__link(new, old); >> > >> > + hists__output_resort(new); >> > + >> > + if (show_displacement) >> > + hists__compute_position(new); >> > + >> >> Computing the position after hists__link screws up the position data, >> because we likely have new entries in. >> >> However, I wonder if anyone is actualy using displacement info..? > > hum, > > the point of the displacement is to show how far is the matching entry > in baseline wrt report output -> after hists__output_resort.. that goes > in opposite way of what we try do to in here. > > Anyone else in favour of removing 'Displ.' column? ;-)
Oh, I somehow thought that the new dummy entries go into the baseline. It's your change in the multi-diff patchset, not current code, right? So we can change either the baseline to have dummies or skipping dummies when computing their position. Of course I have no objection to get rid of the displacement logic completely too. :) Thanks, Namhyung -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
