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

Reply via email to