Em Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:27:08AM -0700, David Ahern escreveu:
> On 11/28/16 6:58 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 02:39:54PM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/time-utils.h b/tools/perf/util/time-utils.h
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..4368a481251d
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/time-utils.h
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> >> +#ifndef _TIME_UTILS_H_
> >> +#define _TIME_UTILS_H_
> >> +
> >> +struct perf_time {
> >> + u64 start, end;
> >> +};
> >
> > hum, it's more interval rather than 'time'
> > would perf_interval, perf_time_interval suit better?
>
> I'll flip to perf_interval.
Humm, I'd prefer 'time_interval' or 'perf_time_interval', plain
'interval' doesn't convey what kind if interval is this, we could be
talking about counter values intervals, etc.
I was even expecting libc or POSIX to have something like this, but from
a quick look I couldn't find anything :-\
> ack to the other 2 comments on this patch.
Ok, waiting for v2 then.
- Arnaldo
