[PATCH 1/3]trace-cmd: remove dead code

[PATCH 1/3]trace-cmd: remove dead code

[Lai Jiangshan]

filter_cpu related code is totally dead.

Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
 trace-read.c |   10 +---------
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/trace-read.c b/trace-read.c
index 0e9ced8..1cd9bd3 100644
--- a/trace-read.c
+++ b/trace-read.c
@@ -73,7 +73,6 @@ static const char *input_file;
 static int multi_inputs;
 static int max_file_size;
 
-static int filter_cpu = -1;
 static int *filter_cpus;
 static int nr_filter_cpus;
 
@@ -619,10 +618,6 @@ get_next_record(struct handle_list *handles, int *next_cpu)
 				record = tracecmd_read_data(handles->handle, next_cpu);
 			else
 				record = NULL;
-
-		} else if (filter_cpu >= 0) {
-			cpu = filter_cpu;
-			record = tracecmd_read_data(handles->handle, cpu);
 		} else
 			record = tracecmd_read_next_data(handles->handle, &cpu);
 
@@ -963,10 +958,7 @@ void trace_report (int argc, char **argv)
 		case 0:
 			switch(option_index) {
 			case 0: /* cpu */
-				if (filter_cpu)
-					add_cpu(optarg);
-				else
-					filter_cpu = atoi(optarg);
+				add_cpu(optarg);
 				break;
 			case 1: /* events */
 				print_events = 1;
-- 
1.7.4

Re: [PATCH 1/3]trace-cmd: remove dead code

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 17:57 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> filter_cpu related code is totally dead.

I'll rephrase this, as it is not dead. "dead" code is code that can not
be reached. This code most certainly can be reached. You may think it is
silly code, which it may be. The reason for the separation of one CPU
and multiple CPUs, is I do one CPU more often than I filter multiple,
and I wanted the 1 cpu to still be efficient.

-- Steve

> 
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  trace-read.c |   10 +---------
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/trace-read.c b/trace-read.c
> index 0e9ced8..1cd9bd3 100644
> --- a/trace-read.c
> +++ b/trace-read.c
> @@ -73,7 +73,6 @@ static const char *input_file;
>  static int multi_inputs;
>  static int max_file_size;
>  
> -static int filter_cpu = -1;
>  static int *filter_cpus;
>  static int nr_filter_cpus;
>  
> @@ -619,10 +618,6 @@ get_next_record(struct handle_list *handles, int *next_cpu)
>  				record = tracecmd_read_data(handles->handle, next_cpu);
>  			else
>  				record = NULL;
> -
> -		} else if (filter_cpu >= 0) {
> -			cpu = filter_cpu;
> -			record = tracecmd_read_data(handles->handle, cpu);
>  		} else
>  			record = tracecmd_read_next_data(handles->handle, &cpu);
>  
> @@ -963,10 +958,7 @@ void trace_report (int argc, char **argv)
>  		case 0:
>  			switch(option_index) {
>  			case 0: /* cpu */
> -				if (filter_cpu)
> -					add_cpu(optarg);
> -				else
> -					filter_cpu = atoi(optarg);
> +				add_cpu(optarg);
>  				break;
>  			case 1: /* events */
>  				print_events = 1;

Re: [PATCH 1/3]trace-cmd: remove dead code

[Lai Jiangshan]

On 03/10/2011 10:53 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 17:57 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> filter_cpu related code is totally dead.
> 
> I'll rephrase this, as it is not dead. "dead" code is code that can not
> be reached. This code most certainly can be reached. You may think it is
> silly code, which it may be. The reason for the separation of one CPU
> and multiple CPUs, is I do one CPU more often than I filter multiple,
> and I wanted the 1 cpu to still be efficient.
> 

I'm confused, filter_cpu is always -1, how the code can be reached?

Re: [PATCH 1/3]trace-cmd: remove dead code

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 10:30 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 03/10/2011 10:53 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 17:57 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >> filter_cpu related code is totally dead.
> > 
> > I'll rephrase this, as it is not dead. "dead" code is code that can not
> > be reached. This code most certainly can be reached. You may think it is
> > silly code, which it may be. The reason for the separation of one CPU
> > and multiple CPUs, is I do one CPU more often than I filter multiple,
> > and I wanted the 1 cpu to still be efficient.
> > 
> 
> I'm confused, filter_cpu is always -1, how the code can be reached?

Ah, you're right. Because of a bug:

-	if (filter_cpu)
+	if (filter_cpu >= 0)
		add_cpu(optarg);
	else
		filter_cpu = atoi(optarg);

Was what it was suppose to be.

-- Steve

[PATCH 1/3 V2]trace-cmd: remove dead code

[Lai Jiangshan]

filter_cpu related code is totally dead.

Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
 trace-read.c |   13 ++++---------
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/trace-read.c b/trace-read.c
index 0e9ced8..88b576f 100644
--- a/trace-read.c
+++ b/trace-read.c
@@ -73,7 +73,6 @@ static const char *input_file;
 static int multi_inputs;
 static int max_file_size;
 
-static int filter_cpu = -1;
 static int *filter_cpus;
 static int nr_filter_cpus;
 
@@ -601,7 +600,7 @@ get_next_record(struct handle_list *handles, int *next_cpu)
 	do {
 		next = -1;
 		ts = 0;
-		if (filter_cpus) {
+		if (nr_filter_cpus > 1) {
 			unsigned long long last_stamp = 0;
 			struct record *precord;
 			int next_cpu = -1;
@@ -619,9 +618,8 @@ get_next_record(struct handle_list *handles, int *next_cpu)
 				record = tracecmd_read_data(handles->handle, next_cpu);
 			else
 				record = NULL;
-
-		} else if (filter_cpu >= 0) {
-			cpu = filter_cpu;
+               } else if (nr_filter_cpus == 1) {
+			cpu = filter_cpus[0];
 			record = tracecmd_read_data(handles->handle, cpu);
 		} else
 			record = tracecmd_read_next_data(handles->handle, &cpu);
@@ -963,10 +961,7 @@ void trace_report (int argc, char **argv)
 		case 0:
 			switch(option_index) {
 			case 0: /* cpu */
-				if (filter_cpu)
-					add_cpu(optarg);
-				else
-					filter_cpu = atoi(optarg);
+				add_cpu(optarg);
 				break;
 			case 1: /* events */
 				print_events = 1;
-- 
1.7.4