From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755641Ab3KEVxD (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:53:03 -0500
Received: from alerce.vps.bitfolk.com ([85.119.82.134]:42309 "EHLO
	alerce.vps.bitfolk.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755499Ab3KEVxB (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:53:01 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:52:43 +0000
From: Rodrigo Campos <rodrigo@sdfg.com.ar>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@lge.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] perf hists: Consolidate __hists__add_*entry()
Message-ID: <20131105215243.GA8303@sdfg.com.ar>
References: <1383682201-19399-1-git-send-email-acme@infradead.org>
 <1383682201-19399-2-git-send-email-acme@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1383682201-19399-2-git-send-email-acme@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 05:09:52PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> @@ -486,15 +425,15 @@ struct hist_entry *__hists__add_entry(struct hists *hists,
>  		.ip	= al->addr,
>  		.level	= al->level,
>  		.stat = {
> -			.period	= period,
>  			.nr_events = 1,
> +			.period	= period,
>  			.weight = weight,
>  		},

Isn't this seems unrelated and unneeded ?

The "period" field is before the "nr_events" field in the struct, so maybe is
more clear to leave it as it was ?  The actual relative order (it has some more
fields) in the struct is: period, weigth, nr_events. Might be better if they
match that order here ? Although not sure since we are using the fields with
name and is clear enough.





Thanks a lot,
Rodrigo