On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 05:16:04PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Rodrigo,
>
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:52:43 +0000, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 05:09:52PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >> @@ -486,15 +425,15 @@ struct hist_entry *__hists__add_entry(struct hists
> >> *hists,
> >> .ip = al->addr,
> >> .level = al->level,
> >> .stat = {
> >> - .period = period,
> >> .nr_events = 1,
> >> + .period = period,
> >> .weight = weight,
> >> },
> >
> > Isn't this seems unrelated and unneeded ?
> >
> > The "period" field is before the "nr_events" field in the struct, so maybe
> > is
> > more clear to leave it as it was ? The actual relative order (it has some
> > more
> > fields) in the struct is: period, weigth, nr_events. Might be better if they
> > match that order here ? Although not sure since we are using the fields with
> > name and is clear enough.
>
> Yes, it just a small unrelated cosmetic change. I don't think the order
> matters much - it just makes my eyes a bit more comfortable. :)
>
> IOW, I changed it since _add_branch_entry() and _add_mem_entry() do it
> slightly different order. So I decided to clean it up and putting
> nr_events at first looked reasonable to me.
Great, sounds reasonable to me too :)
Thangs again,
Rodrigo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
