On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 09:45:53PM -0500, Don Zickus wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:04:05PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:29:04PM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
SNIP > > > + > > > + if (l > r) return 1; > > > + if (l < r) return -1; > > > + > > > + /* sorting by iaddr makes calculations easier later */ > > > + if (left->mi->iaddr.al_addr > right->mi->iaddr.al_addr) return > > > 1; > > > + if (left->mi->iaddr.al_addr < right->mi->iaddr.al_addr) return > > > -1; > > > + } > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > > there's sort object doing exatly this over hist_entry's > > > > Is there any reason not to use hist_entries? > > So looking over hist_entry, I realize, what do I gain? I implemented it > and realized I had to add, 'cpumode', 'tid' and a 'private' field to > struct hist_entry. Then because I have my own report implementation, I > still have to copy and paste a ton of stuff from builtin-report over to > here (including callchain support). you mean new sort_entry objects? > > Not unless you are expecting me to add giant chunks of code to > builtin-report.c? it can be separated object, implementing new report iterator I think that we should go on with existing sort code we have.. but I understand you might need some special usage.. i'll dive in and try to find some answer ;-) jirka -- 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/
