Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> if (!pair)
>> goto dummy_print;
>> if (pair->diff.computed)
>> - percent = pair->diff.period_ratio_delta;
>> + switch (comparison_method) {
>> + case COMPUTE_DELTA:
>> + delta = pair->diff.period_ratio_delta;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + BUG_ON(1);
>> + }
>> else
>> - percent = compute_delta(he, pair);
>> + switch (comparison_method) {
>> + case COMPUTE_DELTA:
>> + delta = compute_delta(he, pair);
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + BUG_ON(1);
>> + }
>>
>> - if (!he->dummy && fabs(percent) >= 0.01) {
>> - scnprintf(pfmt, 20, "%%%+d.2f%%%%", dfmt->header_width - 1);
>> - return color_snprintf(hpp->buf, hpp->size,
>> - percent > 0 ? PERF_COLOR_GREEN :
>> PERF_COLOR_RED,
>> - pfmt, percent);
>> + if (!he->dummy) {
>
> isn't this check superfluous because of the above (!pair) check?
>From builtin-diff.c:get_pair_data(), we see that `pair' is one of the
pairs in he->pairs. he->dummy is set in
util/hist.c:hists__add_dummy_entry() which is called only when he
doesn't have pairs (util/hist.c:942). Wait, couldn't
util/hist.c:hists__add_dummy_entry() also have returned NULL in the
case when he is NULL? But __hpp__color_compare wouldn't have been
called with a NULL he in the first place. So yeah, the check is
redundant although it wasn't immediately obvious to me.
Thanks.
--
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/
