On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:59:36PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:

SNIP

>  
> @@ -2133,8 +2134,19 @@ static void hists__delete_all_entries(struct hists 
> *hists)
>  static void hists_evsel__exit(struct perf_evsel *evsel)
>  {
>       struct hists *hists = evsel__hists(evsel);
> +     struct perf_hpp_fmt *fmt, *pos;
> +     struct perf_hpp_list_node *node;
>  
>       hists__delete_all_entries(hists);
> +
> +     list_for_each_entry(node, &hists->hpp_formats, list) {
> +             perf_hpp_list__for_each_format_safe(&node->hpp, fmt, pos) {
> +                     list_del(&fmt->list);
> +                     free(fmt);
> +             }
> +             list_del(&node->list);
> +             free(node);
> +     }
>  }
>  
>  static int hists_evsel__init(struct perf_evsel *evsel)
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.h b/tools/perf/util/hist.h
> index f4ef513527ba..3cab9dc20822 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/hist.h
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.h
> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ struct hists {
>       u16                     col_len[HISTC_NR_COLS];
>       int                     socket_filter;
>       struct perf_hpp_list    *hpp_list;
> +     struct list_head        hpp_formats;

I've been thinking.. should hpp_formats and hpp_list be merged? something like:

struct perf_hpp_list {
        struct list_head nodes;
        int levels;
}

sturct perf_hpp_list_node {
        int level;
        struct list_head fields;
        struct list_head sorts;
        int nr_sort_keys;
};

it seems wrong to me that your hierarchy code and current one
got in separate paths.. we could have the new hierarchy support
struct above being used in current non-hierarchy code just
by using single level

I haven't thought all this through.. just an idea ;-)

thanks,
jirka

Reply via email to