Re: [PATCH 14/20] perf annotate: Pass struct annotation_options to map_symbol__annotation_dump

[Jiri Olsa]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 10:45:07PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
> 
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 03:05:15PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > Passing struct annotation_options to map_symbol__annotation_dump,
> > to carry on and pass the percent_type value.
> > 
> > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-5toohgdkgpk3vn6zebusr3bb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> 
> [SNIP]
> > @@ -2523,7 +2526,7 @@ static void disasm_line__write(struct disasm_line *dl, struct annotation *notes,
> >  
> >  static void __annotation_line__write(struct annotation_line *al, struct annotation *notes,
> >  				     bool first_line, bool current_entry, bool change_color, int width,
> > -				     void *obj,
> > +				     void *obj, unsigned int percent_type,
> >  				     int  (*obj__set_color)(void *obj, int color),
> >  				     void (*obj__set_percent_color)(void *obj, double percent, bool current),
> >  				     int  (*obj__set_jumps_percent_color)(void *obj, int nr, bool current),
> > @@ -2531,7 +2534,7 @@ static void __annotation_line__write(struct annotation_line *al, struct annotati
> >  				     void (*obj__write_graph)(void *obj, int graph))
> >  
> >  {
> > -	double percent_max = annotation_line__max_percent(al, notes);
> > +	double percent_max = annotation_line__max_percent(al, notes, percent_type);
> >  	int pcnt_width = annotation__pcnt_width(notes),
> >  	    cycles_width = annotation__cycles_width(notes);
> >  	bool show_title = false;
> > @@ -2552,8 +2555,7 @@ static void __annotation_line__write(struct annotation_line *al, struct annotati
> >  		for (i = 0; i < notes->nr_events; i++) {
> >  			double percent;
> >  
> > -			percent = annotation_data__percent(&al->data[i],
> > -							   PERCENT_HITS_LOCAL);
> > +			percent = annotation_data__percent(&al->data[i], percent_type);
> >  
> >  			obj__set_percent_color(obj, percent, current_entry);
> >  			if (notes->options->show_total_period) {
> > @@ -2680,13 +2682,15 @@ static void __annotation_line__write(struct annotation_line *al, struct annotati
> >  }
> >  
> >  void annotation_line__write(struct annotation_line *al, struct annotation *notes,
> > -			    struct annotation_write_ops *ops)
> > +			    struct annotation_write_ops *wops,
> > +			    struct annotation_options *opts)
> >  {
> > -	__annotation_line__write(al, notes, ops->first_line, ops->current_entry,
> > -				 ops->change_color, ops->width, ops->obj,
> > -				 ops->set_color, ops->set_percent_color,
> > -				 ops->set_jumps_percent_color, ops->printf,
> > -				 ops->write_graph);
> > +	__annotation_line__write(al, notes, wops->first_line, wops->current_entry,
> > +				 wops->change_color, wops->width, wops->obj,
> > +				 opts->percent_type,
> > +				 wops->set_color, wops->set_percent_color,
> > +				 wops->set_jumps_percent_color, wops->printf,
> > +				 wops->write_graph);
> 
> This doesn't look good.  Why not just passing a pointer to wops
> instead of each fields separately?

yep, my thoughts exactly when I saw this ;-) we probably had some
other caller..  however I only wanted to add one more param ;-)

I'll check what we can do with this in v2

jirka