On Thu, 21 May 2015 13:30:08 -0400
Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com> wrote:
> +static void merge_tasks(struct handle_data *h)
> +{
> + struct trace_hash_item **bucket;
> + struct trace_hash_item *item;
> +
> + if (!merge_like_comms)
> + return;
> +
> + trace_hash_for_each_bucket(bucket, &h->task_hash) {
> + trace_hash_for_each_item(item, bucket)
> + add_group(h, task_from_item(item));
> + }
> +}
> +
> int trace_profile(void)
> {
> struct handle_data *h;
>
> for (h = handles; h; h = h->next) {
> + if (merge_like_comms)
> + merge_tasks(h);
I don't think we need the double check. Here you only call
merge_tasks() if merge_like_comms is set, but then the first thing you
do in merge_tasks() is to return if merge_like_comms is not set. One
check is enough.
-- Steve
> output_handle(h);
> trace_hash_free(&h->task_hash);
> }
--
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/
