Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Don't write to evsel if parser doesn't collect evsel

[Jiri Olsa]

On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:05:54PM +0800, pi3orama wrote:

SNIP

> >>>        perf_evlist__splice_list_tail(evlist, &data.list, entries);
> >>>        evlist->nr_groups += data.nr_groups;
> >>> -        last = perf_evlist__last(evlist);
> >>> -        last->cmdline_group_boundary = true;
> >>>        return 0;
> >>>    }
> >>> @@ -1252,7 +1262,13 @@ foreach_evsel_in_last_glob(struct perf_evlist *evlist,
> >>>    struct perf_evsel *last = NULL;
> >>>    int err;
> >>> -    if (evlist->nr_entries > 0)
> >>> +    /*
> >>> +     * Don't return when list_empty, give func a chance to report
> >>> +     * error when it found last == NULL.
> >>> +     *
> >>> +     * So no need to WARN here, let *func do this.
> >>> +     */
> >>> +    if (!list_empty(&evlist->entries))
> > 
> > why is it better than to check evlist->nr_entries?
> > evlist->nr_entries is equivalent to !list_empty(&evlist->entries) in here, right?
> > 
> 
> By checking list we won't rely on the assumption that nr_entries reflects the
> actual number of elements in that list, makes the logic of this code more compact.
> Don't you think so?
> 
> At this point they are equivalent, but the whole patch is preventive action.

ok, fair enough ;-)

Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>

thanks,
jirka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/