On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:41:09PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
>
>
> On 10/2/2017 7:58 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:45:21PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-script.c b/tools/perf/builtin-script.c
> >> index 9092de0..7fd3063 100644
> >> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-script.c
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-script.c
> >> @@ -1357,6 +1357,8 @@ static void print_sample_synth(struct perf_sample
> >> *sample,
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> +#define PTIME_RANGE_MAX 10
> >> +
> >> struct perf_script {
> >> struct perf_tool tool;
> >> struct perf_session *session;
> >> @@ -1370,6 +1372,8 @@ struct perf_script {
> >> int name_width;
> >> const char *time_str;
> >> struct perf_time_interval ptime;
> >> + struct perf_time_interval ptime_range[PTIME_RANGE_MAX];
> >> + int range_num;
> >> };
> >>
> >> static int perf_evlist__max_name_len(struct perf_evlist *evlist)
> >> @@ -1565,8 +1569,11 @@ static int process_sample_event(struct perf_tool
> >> *tool,
> >> struct perf_script *scr = container_of(tool, struct perf_script, tool);
> >> struct addr_location al;
> >>
> >> - if (perf_time__skip_sample(&scr->ptime, sample->time))
> >> + if (perf_time__skip_sample(&scr->ptime, sample->time) ||
> >> + perf_time__ranges_skip_sample(scr->ptime_range, scr->range_num,
> >> + sample->time)) {
> >
> > any reason for why dont use ptime_range[1] with range_num = 1
> > and use just a single call here?
> >
> > jirka
> >
>
> Just want the code to be easy reading.
>
> perf_time__range_skip_sample doesn't allow the invalid time range.
>
> But perf_time__skip_sample allows the time range to be invalid (ptime->start
> or ptime->end can be 0).
>
> I don't want to mix them up because the code might be not clear.
>
> Are 2 calls OK here? If you think a single call is better, I will change.
well, would be nice to have single call for this.. but not big deal for me ;-)
jirka
