On Friday, July 7, 2017 12:29:35 AM CEST Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:31:18 +0200 > > Federico Vaga <federico.v...@vaga.pv.it> wrote: > > show_file(name) and show_instance_file(&top_instance, name) are > > equivalent. > > > > Remove the show_file() function in order to have a single function for > > this task. > > Actually I find nothing wrong with having a helper function like this. > IIRC, show_file() was first, and then show_instance_file() came later. > There's some files that only exist for the top_instance, and I like the > fact that this is annotated that way. > > I'm curious to know what the benefit of removing show_file() is?
The show_file(name) and show_instance_file(&top_instance, name) are equivalent: they do the same thing. By removing `show_file` the developers are forced to use always the same function and being explicit about the instance they want to use. The name `show_file()` is so generic that does not implies automatically that we are accessing the top_instance. This is not even clear by reading the implementation; people must read the other functions used in `show_file()` to understand that their instance scope is always 'top_instance'. So, in my opinion, it makes the code easier to read and more explicit in what is doing without too much effort. > -- Steve > > > Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <federico.v...@vaga.pv.it> > > --- > > > > trace-list.c | 21 ++++++--------------- > > trace-local.h | 2 -- > > trace-show.c | 18 ++---------------- > > trace-snapshot.c | 2 +- > > 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > \ -- Federico Vaga http://www.federicovaga.it/
