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 S933547AbcE3Tc7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 30 May 2016 15:32:59 -0400
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:41693 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S933370AbcE3Tc6 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 30 May 2016 15:32:58 -0400
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 16:32:54 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] perf config: Reimplement perf_config() using
 perf_config_set__iter()
Message-ID: <20160530193254.GC2563@kernel.org>
References: <1464626651-1523-1-git-send-email-treeze.taeung@gmail.com>
 <1464626651-1523-5-git-send-email-treeze.taeung@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1464626651-1523-5-git-send-email-treeze.taeung@gmail.com>
X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Em Tue, May 31, 2016 at 01:44:08AM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu:
> +static int perf_config_set__iter(struct perf_config_set *set, config_fn_t fn, void *data)
> +{
> +	struct perf_config_section *section;
> +	struct perf_config_item *item;
> +	struct list_head *sections;
> +	char key[BUFSIZ];
> +
> +	if (set == NULL)
> +		return -1;
<SNIP>
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +int perf_config(config_fn_t fn, void *data)
> +{
> +	if (perf_config_set__check() < 0)
> +		return -1;
> +	return perf_config_set__iter(config_set, fn, data);
> +}

"check" looks too vague, this is equivalent, no?

int perf_config(config_fn_t, void *data)
{
	if (config_set == NULL)
		config_set = perf_config_set__new();
	
	return perf_config_set__iter(config_set, fn, data);
}

- Arnaldo