On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 06:29:15PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 13:15:59 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 05:24:16PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > >> From: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]> > > > > SNIP > > > >> index 2b585bc308cf..1b22b6269213 100644 > >> --- a/tools/perf/util/callchain.h > >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/callchain.h > >> @@ -21,10 +21,9 @@ enum chain_order { > >> > >> struct callchain_node { > >> struct callchain_node *parent; > >> - struct list_head siblings; > >> - struct list_head children; > >> struct list_head val; > >> struct rb_node rb_node; /* to sort nodes in an rbtree */ > >> + struct rb_root rb_root_in; /* sorted tree of children */ > >> struct rb_root rb_root; /* sorted tree of children */ > >> unsigned int val_nr; > >> u64 hit; > >> @@ -86,8 +85,6 @@ extern __thread struct callchain_cursor callchain_cursor; > >> > >> static inline void callchain_init(struct callchain_root *root) > >> { > >> - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&root->node.siblings); > >> - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&root->node.children); > >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&root->node.val); > > > > don't we miss rb_root_in init here, like: > > > > root->node.rb_root_in = RB_ROOT; > > The struct callchain_root in hist entry initialized to zero so > technically it doesn't need to be set. But I think it's better to have > explicit initializer.
yep, I was writing some tests for this when I noticed that, having callchain_root defined on stack jirka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
