On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:32:49PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 06:13:17PM +0800, Du, Changbin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > yes, this is an option. But for safety, I sugguest do not rely on
> > > > list_del_init.
> > > > No rule rather than create one.
> > > >
> > > > But anyway, both are ok for me. What's your options?
> > >
> > > hum, also I dont think we need to touch that bit at all
> > > if we are going to remove it right away.. how about the
> > > change below?
> > >
> > > jirka
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/tools/perf/ui/hist.c b/tools/perf/ui/hist.c
> > > index 5d632dca672a..0ee7db43dd7d 100644
> > > --- a/tools/perf/ui/hist.c
> > > +++ b/tools/perf/ui/hist.c
> > > @@ -613,15 +613,15 @@ void perf_hpp__reset_output_field(struct
> > > perf_hpp_list *list)
> > >
> > > /* reset output fields */
> > > perf_hpp_list__for_each_format_safe(list, fmt, tmp) {
> > > - list_del_init(&fmt->list);
> > > - list_del_init(&fmt->sort_list);
> > > + list_del(&fmt->list);
> > > + /* Remove the fmt from next loop processing. */
> > > + list_del(&fmt->sort_list);
> > > fmt_free(fmt);
> > What if the fmt is not linked to sort_list? I see it is possible (please
> > checking perf_hpp__setup_output_field()). I am not sure if we really has
> > sunch case currently, just concern :)
>
> if it's not linked to sort_list, then sort_list is initialized
> and list_del should do no harm
>
ok, then it's fine if you insist.> jirka -- Thanks, Changbin Du
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
