On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 12:22:19PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: SNIP
> > > > - ops->set_jumps_percent_color, > > > > ops->printf, > > > > - ops->write_graph); > > > > + __annotation_line__write(al, notes, wops->first_line, > > > > wops->current_entry, > > > > + wops->change_color, wops->width, > > > > wops->obj, > > > > + opts->percent_type, > > > > + wops->set_color, > > > > wops->set_percent_color, > > > > + wops->set_jumps_percent_color, > > > > wops->printf, > > > > + wops->write_graph); > > > > > > This doesn't look good. Why not just passing a pointer to wops > > > instead of each fields separately? > > > > yep, my thoughts exactly when I saw this ;-) we probably had some > > But then, while this is a valid observation, it is not related to this > patchkit, that is just adding an extra config variable, percent_type, at > some point one can try to shorten that function signature, looking at > why it was done this way originally to see if there was any reason or if > its just something to improve by shortening the function signature. > > Applying Jiri's patch, > > > other caller.. however I only wanted to add one more param ;-) > > Right > > > I'll check what we can do with this in v2 > > I'm going thru v2 already, so far its an uncontrovertial, trivial, so > I think you better just wait a teeny bit for this to be applied and then > get on over with followup patches, ok? sure, np jirka
