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 S1756126Ab3KFIQJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 6 Nov 2013 03:16:09 -0500
Received: from LGEMRELSE7Q.lge.com ([156.147.1.151]:63210 "EHLO
	LGEMRELSE7Q.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750924Ab3KFIQI (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 6 Nov 2013 03:16:08 -0500
X-AuditID: 9c930197-b7c0bae0000007bd-d7-5279fac4f96f
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Rodrigo Campos <rodrigo@sdfg.com.ar>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@lge.com>,
        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()
References: <1383682201-19399-1-git-send-email-acme@infradead.org>
	<1383682201-19399-2-git-send-email-acme@infradead.org>
	<20131105215243.GA8303@sdfg.com.ar>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:16:04 +0900
In-Reply-To: <20131105215243.GA8303@sdfg.com.ar> (Rodrigo Campos's message of
	"Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:52:43 +0000")
Message-ID: <87habqx7wb.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Rodrigo,

On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:52:43 +0000, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> 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.

Yes, it just a small unrelated cosmetic change.  I don't think the order
matters much - it just makes my eyes a bit more comfortable. :)

IOW, I changed it since _add_branch_entry() and _add_mem_entry() do it
slightly different order.  So I decided to clean it up and putting
nr_events at first looked reasonable to me.

Thanks,
Namhyung