On 05/31/2016 04:32 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Tue, May 31, 2016 at 01:44:08AM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu:
+static int perf_config_set__iter(struct perf_config_set *set, config_fn_t fn,
void *data)
+{
+ struct perf_config_section *section;
+ struct perf_config_item *item;
+ struct list_head *sections;
+ char key[BUFSIZ];
+
+ if (set == NULL)
+ return -1;
<SNIP>
+ return 0;
+}
+int perf_config(config_fn_t fn, void *data)
+{
+ if (perf_config_set__check() < 0)
+ return -1;
+ return perf_config_set__iter(config_set, fn, data);
+}
"check" looks too vague, this is equivalent, no?
int perf_config(config_fn_t, void *data)
{
if (config_set == NULL)
config_set = perf_config_set__new();
return perf_config_set__iter(config_set, fn, data);
}
I understood it! I thought __check() function is needed for readability.
But I'll remove __check() because it would seem that the function isn't
needed as you said.
Thanks,
Taeung