Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1626144
| From | Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] perf report: Refactor the branch info printing code |
| Date | 2017-04-19 16:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <txYCB-4sd-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <txSGR-FS-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <txSGS-FS-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:48:11PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
SNIP
> +
> static int counts_str_build(char *bf, int bfsize,
> u64 branch_count, u64 predicted_count,
> u64 abort_count, u64 cycles_count,
> u64 iter_count, u64 samples_count)
> {
> - double predicted_percent = 0.0;
> - const char *null_str = "";
> - char iter_str[32];
> - char cycle_str[32];
> - char *istr, *cstr;
> u64 cycles;
> + int printed = 0, i = 0;
I like it, but it looks like the previous code displayed those
bits in another order.. I managed to catch this one:
1337c1337
< --0.53%--menu_select menu.c:218 (iterations:6 predicted:0.0%)
---
> --0.53%--menu_select menu.c:218 (predicted:0.0% iterations:6)
I think we better keep the current order, which seems
to be the goal of the original code as well
this function is perfect candidate for automated test ;-)
(something like we did in tests/kmod-path.c)
thanks,
jirka
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v5 4/7] perf report: Refactor the branch info printing code Jin Yao <yao.jin@linux.intel.com> - 2017-04-19 10:00 +0200 Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] perf report: Refactor the branch info printing code Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> - 2017-04-19 16:20 +0200 Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] perf report: Refactor the branch info printing code Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> - 2017-04-19 16:20 +0200
csiph-web