Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] perf config: Introduce perf_config_set class

[Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@gmail.com>]

On 04/01/2016 11:35 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 07:27:22PM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu:
>> On 04/01/2016 02:31 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Em Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 09:43:13AM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu:
>>>> +static int collect_config(const char *var, const char *value,
>>>> +			  void *perf_config_set)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int ret = -1;
>>>> +	char *ptr, *key;
>>>> +	char *section_name, *name;
>>>> +	struct perf_config_section *section = NULL;
>>>> +	struct perf_config_item *config_item = NULL;
>>>> +	struct perf_config_set *perf_configs = perf_config_set;
>>>> +	struct list_head *sections = &perf_configs->sections;
>
>>>> +	key = ptr = strdup(var);
>>>> +	if (!key) {
>>>> +		pr_err("%s: strdup failed\n", __func__);
>
>>> pr_debug()
>
>> I'll change pr_err to pr_debug.
>> But why do use pr_debug at only this part ?
>
> Well, ideally one would propagate the errors from library level code to
> the code in the tool, i.e. closer to builtin-foo.c, where it would
> decide how to present it to the user.
>
> For extra messages, that may help a more advanced user or to be sent to
> the tool developers, use pr_debug().

I understood it!

>
>>>> +struct perf_config_section {
>>>> +	char *name;
>>>> +	struct list_head config_items;
>
>>> s/config_items/items/g
>
>>>> +	struct list_head list;
>
>>> s/list/node/g
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +struct perf_config_set {
>>>> +	struct list_head sections;
>
>>> See? Here you did it right, no point in having it as "config_sections"
>
>> I'll rename it to 'config_sections'.
>
> I meant to keep this one like it is, i.e. perf_config_set->sections, and
> use the same principle: shorter names, removing useless stuff like
> "config_", that in this case can be implied by the name of the class,
> and apply it to the perf_config_section case, making it
> perf_config_section->items, ok?

I got it. :-)

I'll resend v5

Thanks,
Taeung