On 04/01/2016 11:35 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 07:27:22PM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu:
On 04/01/2016 02:31 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 09:43:13AM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu:
+static int collect_config(const char *var, const char *value,
+ void *perf_config_set)
+{
+ int ret = -1;
+ char *ptr, *key;
+ char *section_name, *name;
+ struct perf_config_section *section = NULL;
+ struct perf_config_item *config_item = NULL;
+ struct perf_config_set *perf_configs = perf_config_set;
+ struct list_head *sections = &perf_configs->sections;
+ key = ptr = strdup(var);
+ if (!key) {
+ pr_err("%s: strdup failed\n", __func__);
pr_debug()
I'll change pr_err to pr_debug.
But why do use pr_debug at only this part ?
Well, ideally one would propagate the errors from library level code to
the code in the tool, i.e. closer to builtin-foo.c, where it would
decide how to present it to the user.
For extra messages, that may help a more advanced user or to be sent to
the tool developers, use pr_debug().
I understood it!
+struct perf_config_section {
+ char *name;
+ struct list_head config_items;
s/config_items/items/g
+ struct list_head list;
s/list/node/g
+};
+
+struct perf_config_set {
+ struct list_head sections;
See? Here you did it right, no point in having it as "config_sections"
I'll rename it to 'config_sections'.
I meant to keep this one like it is, i.e. perf_config_set->sections, and
use the same principle: shorter names, removing useless stuff like
"config_", that in this case can be implied by the name of the class,
and apply it to the perf_config_section case, making it
perf_config_section->items, ok?
I got it. :-)
I'll resend v5
Thanks,
Taeung
