Em Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 06:00:59PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 01:50:47PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 07:51:18PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > > Hi Jiri,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 05:15:33PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 01:03:01AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > >
> > > > SNIP
> > > >
> > > > > char *srcfile;
> > > > > struct symbol *parent;
> > > > > - struct rb_root sorted_chain;
> > > > > struct branch_info *branch_info;
> > > > > struct hists *hists;
> > > > > struct mem_info *mem_info;
> > > > > void *raw_data;
> > > > > u32 raw_size;
> > > > > void *trace_output;
> > > > > + struct perf_hpp_fmt *fmt;
> > > > > + struct hist_entry *parent_he;
> > > > > + union {
> > > > > + /* this is for hierarchical entry structure */
> > > > > + struct {
> > > > > + struct rb_root hroot_in;
> > > > > + struct rb_root hroot_out;
> > > > > + }; /* non-leaf entries */
> > > > > + struct rb_root sorted_chain; /* leaf entry has
> > > > > callchains */
> > > > > + };
> > > >
> > > > looks like cool feature!
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > could we have the hist_entry storage little more generic?
> > > > and maybe dynamically allocated?
> > >
> > > I'm fine with it.
> >
> > Ok, so how should we proceed? I propose I test this patchkit, which
> > indeed looks cool from this cover letter description, yay!
> >
> > If I find no problems, I'll merge it and, then, on top of it, you guys
> > can work on having this per-feature priv storage sorted out?
> >
> > Please advise, meanwhile I'll cherry-pick whatever seems easy from both
> > patchkits.
>
> Namhyung,
> are you going to send another version, or should I review this one?
This is what I am assuming, going thru the patches and replacing the
fourth (4/17) by the 4.1/17 and 4.2/17 that he sent.
- Arnaldo
