On 23/10/13 09:15, David Ahern wrote:
> On 10/22/13 8:34 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> +static int process_attr(struct perf_tool *tool, union perf_event *event,
>> + struct perf_evlist **pevlist)
>> +{
>> + struct perf_script *scr = container_of(tool, struct perf_script, tool);
>> + struct perf_evlist *evlist;
>> + struct perf_evsel *evsel, *pos;
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + err = perf_event__process_attr(tool, event, pevlist);
>> + if (err)
>> + return err;
>> +
>> + evlist = *pevlist;
>> + evsel = perf_evlist__last(*pevlist);
>
> This assumes new entries are added to the end of evlist in
> perf_event__process_attr. Would be better to change it to return the newly
> created evsel so you don't need to look it up after adding it.
perf_event__process_attr() must not reorder the attributes,
it would misrepresent the way they were recorded.
>
>> +
>> + if (evsel->attr.type >= PERF_TYPE_MAX)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(pos, &evlist->entries, node) {
>> + if (pos->attr.type == evsel->attr.type && pos != evsel)
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>
> What's the point of this loop?
Each type is checked once - see perf_session__check_output_opt()
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
