On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:02:26AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 01:17:44PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > > We only needs to remove the format from the currently > > iterated list. The other removals/inits are superfluous > > because we free the format in any case. > > > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/[email protected] > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> > > --- > > tools/perf/ui/hist.c | 8 ++++---- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/ui/hist.c b/tools/perf/ui/hist.c > > index feb2174ddd1f..a0fee2ac8599 100644 > > --- a/tools/perf/ui/hist.c > > +++ b/tools/perf/ui/hist.c > > @@ -614,15 +614,15 @@ 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); > > Why not just add the comment and leave it as list_del_init(), then, in > fmt_free() -> fmt->free() -> hse_free() (for instance), have: > > BUG_ON(!list_empty(&fmt->list)); > BUG_ON(!list_empty(&fmt->sort_list)); > > The patch would be smaller and overall the code would be more robust?
ok, that could catch something.. will change thanks, jirka
