Hi Rodrigo,
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:52:43 +0000, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 05:09:52PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> @@ -486,15 +425,15 @@ struct hist_entry *__hists__add_entry(struct hists
>> *hists,
>> .ip = al->addr,
>> .level = al->level,
>> .stat = {
>> - .period = period,
>> .nr_events = 1,
>> + .period = period,
>> .weight = weight,
>> },
>
> Isn't this seems unrelated and unneeded ?
>
> The "period" field is before the "nr_events" field in the struct, so maybe is
> more clear to leave it as it was ? The actual relative order (it has some
> more
> fields) in the struct is: period, weigth, nr_events. Might be better if they
> match that order here ? Although not sure since we are using the fields with
> name and is clear enough.
Yes, it just a small unrelated cosmetic change. I don't think the order
matters much - it just makes my eyes a bit more comfortable. :)
IOW, I changed it since _add_branch_entry() and _add_mem_entry() do it
slightly different order. So I decided to clean it up and putting
nr_events at first looked reasonable to me.
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/
