From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: Jin Yao <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>
Cc: acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
mingo@redhat.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com,
kan.liang@intel.com, yao.jin@intel.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] perf report: Refactor the branch info printing code
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:15:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170419141516.GB19643@krava> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1492616894-3635-5-git-send-email-yao.jin@linux.intel.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-19 14:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-19 15:48 [PATCH v5 0/7] perf report: Show branch type Jin Yao
2017-04-19 15:48 ` [PATCH v5 1/7] perf/core: Define the common branch type classification Jin Yao
2017-04-19 15:48 ` [PATCH v5 2/7] perf/x86/intel: Record branch type Jin Yao
2017-04-19 15:48 ` [PATCH v5 3/7] perf record: Create a new option save_type in --branch-filter Jin Yao
2017-04-19 15:48 ` [PATCH v5 4/7] perf report: Refactor the branch info printing code Jin Yao
2017-04-19 14:15 ` Jiri Olsa [this message]
2017-04-19 14:15 ` Jiri Olsa
2017-04-19 15:48 ` [PATCH v5 5/7] perf util: Create branch.c/.h for common branch functions Jin Yao
2017-04-19 15:48 ` [PATCH v5 6/7] perf report: Show branch type statistics for stdio mode Jin Yao
2017-04-19 14:15 ` Jiri Olsa
2017-04-19 14:15 ` Jiri Olsa
2017-04-19 15:48 ` [PATCH v5 7/7] perf report: Show branch type in callchain entry Jin Yao
2017-04-19 14:15 ` Jiri Olsa
2017-04-20 0:36 ` Jin, Yao
2017-04-19 14:15 ` Jiri Olsa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170419141516.GB19643@krava \
--to=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kan.liang@intel.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=yao.jin@intel.com \
--cc=yao.jin@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).