On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 10:45:07PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi Jiri, > > On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 03:05:15PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > Passing struct annotation_options to map_symbol__annotation_dump, > > to carry on and pass the percent_type value. > > > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-5toohgdkgpk3vn6zebusr...@git.kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jo...@kernel.org> > > --- > > [SNIP] > > @@ -2523,7 +2526,7 @@ static void disasm_line__write(struct disasm_line > > *dl, struct annotation *notes, > > > > static void __annotation_line__write(struct annotation_line *al, struct > > annotation *notes, > > bool first_line, bool current_entry, bool > > change_color, int width, > > - void *obj, > > + void *obj, unsigned int percent_type, > > int (*obj__set_color)(void *obj, int > > color), > > void (*obj__set_percent_color)(void *obj, > > double percent, bool current), > > int (*obj__set_jumps_percent_color)(void > > *obj, int nr, bool current), > > @@ -2531,7 +2534,7 @@ static void __annotation_line__write(struct > > annotation_line *al, struct annotati > > void (*obj__write_graph)(void *obj, int > > graph)) > > > > { > > - double percent_max = annotation_line__max_percent(al, notes); > > + double percent_max = annotation_line__max_percent(al, notes, > > percent_type); > > int pcnt_width = annotation__pcnt_width(notes), > > cycles_width = annotation__cycles_width(notes); > > bool show_title = false; > > @@ -2552,8 +2555,7 @@ static void __annotation_line__write(struct > > annotation_line *al, struct annotati > > for (i = 0; i < notes->nr_events; i++) { > > double percent; > > > > - percent = annotation_data__percent(&al->data[i], > > - PERCENT_HITS_LOCAL); > > + percent = annotation_data__percent(&al->data[i], > > percent_type); > > > > obj__set_percent_color(obj, percent, current_entry); > > if (notes->options->show_total_period) { > > @@ -2680,13 +2682,15 @@ static void __annotation_line__write(struct > > annotation_line *al, struct annotati > > } > > > > void annotation_line__write(struct annotation_line *al, struct annotation > > *notes, > > - struct annotation_write_ops *ops) > > + struct annotation_write_ops *wops, > > + struct annotation_options *opts) > > { > > - __annotation_line__write(al, notes, ops->first_line, ops->current_entry, > > - ops->change_color, ops->width, ops->obj, > > - ops->set_color, ops->set_percent_color, > > - ops->set_jumps_percent_color, ops->printf, > > - ops->write_graph); > > + __annotation_line__write(al, notes, wops->first_line, > > wops->current_entry, > > + wops->change_color, wops->width, wops->obj, > > + opts->percent_type, > > + wops->set_color, wops->set_percent_color, > > + wops->set_jumps_percent_color, wops->printf, > > + wops->write_graph); > > This doesn't look good. Why not just passing a pointer to wops > instead of each fields separately?
yep, my thoughts exactly when I saw this ;-) we probably had some other caller.. however I only wanted to add one more param ;-) I'll check what we can do with this in v2 jirka
