On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:40:07AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote: [...]
> > > > static ocsd_datapath_resp_t cs_etm_decoder__gen_trace_elem_printer( > > > > const void *context, > > > > const ocsd_trc_index_t indx __maybe_unused, > > > > @@ -484,6 +650,8 @@ static ocsd_datapath_resp_t > > > > cs_etm_decoder__gen_trace_elem_printer( > > > > break; > > > > } > > > > > > > > + cs_etm_decoder__set_sample_flags(context, elem); > > > > + > > > > > > I was toying with the idea of setting the flags in each of the case > > > statement > > > found in cs_etm_decoder__gen_trace_elem_printer(). But that would move > > > more > > > code around and the end result would be the same so let's keep it that > > > way until > > > we have a good reason to split it. > > > > Do you sugguest to keep current implementation rather than to > > split flags setting in each of the case statement in > > cs_etm_decoder__gen_trace_elem_printer()? > > > > I am not 100% sure if I understand correctly for "split it" (split flags > > setting vs split functions). So please correct me if I misunderstand > > this. > > I find function cs_etm_decoder__set_sample_flags() overly long. Since > the case statements in it are the same as the ones in > cs_etm_decoder__gen_trace_elem_printer() a different way to proceed > would be to do flag setting there rather than all in > cs_etm_decoder__set_sample_flags(). But that would introduce more > code modification and tighter coupling. Since I don't have another > alternative I am suggesting to keep the current implementation. Thanks for clarification.
